 Okay we're now live thank you. Pippa you're muted I'm afraid. Thank you and good morning to everyone, to members, to officers, to any members of the public who are viewing this live stream of this planning committee meeting. So welcome everybody to the South Cambridgeshire District Council Planning Committee. My name is Councillor Pippa Halings and I'm vice chair of the committee however councillor John Bachelor chair of the committee can't be with us today and so I'll be chairing this meeting and please bear with me. First time I'm chairing this meeting so I hope I'll do everybody justice on this one. I've asked councillor Anna Bradnum to act as vice chair of the meeting so may I ask members please to agree to this by affirmation. Agree. Thank you. Does anybody not agree which is probably the easiest way of doing that? Good thank you and thank you very much councillor Anna Bradnum for helping me in that way just to clarify we'll be using the chat box specifically for requests to speak not for any kind of conversation around the issues for debaters this is a public meeting so all conversation happens in public so reserve the chat just to ask request to speak which is for the committee members and for officers only for that. Thank you very much so we are supported on the virtual top table which is now dotted around and I'm going to ask each of these to switch on their cameras and to say hello and then switch off again so first of all we have Chris Carter who's the delivery manager for strategic sites. Good morning members. Thank you very much Chris and we also have Stephen Reid who is our senior planning lawyer Stephen. Good morning care and members of the committee. Morning thank you very much Stephen and we have very very importantly as well Ian senior who is a democratic service officer taking the minutes today. Good morning everyone. Morning many thanks Ian and I'm now going to introduce everybody else there will be case officers and resource people who'll be speaking to different issues on the agenda and I'll leave that up to case officers to introduce them at each of the agenda items rather than naming them all now. So first of all just a few housekeeping announcements please make sure that your device is fully charged switch your cameras and microphones off unless you're invited to do so otherwise. When you're invited to address the meeting please make sure your microphone is switched on and when you finished addressing the meeting please turn your microphone off immediately speak slowly clearly and please do not talk over or interrupt anyone please ensure also that you've switched off or silence any other devices such as phones or anything that you have so they don't interrupt proceedings. The virtual meetings do allow us to continue dealing with these important applications and we really want to make sure that this is a fair and efficient meeting but everybody has the chance to take about so please turn off your cameras and microphones until you're invited to do so otherwise. The normal procedure at planning committees is to take recorded votes and we'll continue with this tradition unless there's a clear affirmation otherwise. When we move to a vote on any item and there is not clear affirmation I will ask for a roll call to be taken. I will then ask committee members to speak into the microphone so that their vote is clear both to the committee and to those watching the webcast. Members should respond for against or abstain when their name is called and could I have somebody to second that that these decisions are recorded? Yes Chairman I'll second that. Thank you very much. Can I just point out that I don't know if it's the same for other people but I have a meeting chat which is telling me I can't send messages because I'm not a member of the chat now I don't know if that relates to an earlier conversation but or an earlier meeting I don't know if I'm the only one in which case if I am I need to go out and come back in again I think. Aaron are you there you are our support officer tech support. Hi yeah it's Liam today. Yeah I'm not sure why that would be honestly um if you if you go onto the tab at the top where it says uh show conversation if you're not able to um like type into that into the meeting chat there then I'm honestly not quite sure I'm gonna have to look up what to do I mean maybe if you want to exit and then come back in that may help um but yeah I'm not quite sure I'm gonna have to have a think about that one. Sorry about this members everybody just with councillor Braden and being vice chair it's important that she can both see chat and can type into the chat. Okay chairman I'll I'll go out and I'll come back in again um I apologise for the delay excuse me while I disappear. While we're doing that I will continue what we're doing was introducing all of the planning committee members so I'm going to introduce ask each of you to introduce yourselves so please after I call out your name please turn on your camera and microphone just wait two seconds and then say your name and the word you represent so that your presence may be noted and then please remember to turn off your camera after your introduction. Sorry as I said earlier my name is councillor Pippa Haleings I'm the member for Histon in Pinkton and Orchard Park and I'm chairing this meeting. Councillor Henry bachelor um please introduce yourself because I understand you're subbing for councillor John bachelor is that correct? Yes morning chair councillor Henry bachelor subbing for John bachelor I'm one of the members thank you very much. Councillor Anna Bradenham you're back with us that's good to see. Thank you and the problem seems to have sorted itself out um so that's good so I'm councillor Anna Bradenham one of the members for Milton and Water Beach Ward. Thank you very much um councillor Dr Martin Kahn. I'm councillor Martin Kahn I'm a member for Histon in Pinkton and Orchard Park. Thank you very much um councillor Peter Fain. Morning Peter Fain Shelford Ward. Thank you very much councillor Dr Toomey Hawkins. Good morning everyone Toomey Hawkins I represent Codicot Ward. Thank you very much councillor Deborah Roberts. Morning Chairman Deborah Roberts district councillor for Foxton Ward. Thank you. Did we see you Deborah? Oh you better not really have seen my hair. Thank you very much just checking it works when you do commit thank you very much councillor Heather Williams and Heather Williams and I represent the Mordons Ward. Thank you very much councillor Dr Richard Williams. Thank you very much chair I'm Richard Williams I'm the member for Wittlesford Treplo Heathfield in Newton. Thank you very much and um councillor Eileen Wilson I understand you're substituting for councillor Judith Rippert is that correct? I am correct um hello good morning um councillor Eileen Wilson representing Cottenham and Rampton Ward. Thank you very much and councillor Nick Wright. Good morning Nick Wright representing Caxton and Packworth. Thank you very much good so I can confirm that the meetings core it. Do we have any other councillors present please? Yes um yes councillor Haylings um thank you um I'm Claire Daunton and I am one of the members for full-born and Fendton Ward. Thank you very much and uh I'm John Williams also a member for Fendton and full-born ward and I'm also present. Thank you very much councillor John Williams. Yes chair councillor Jeff Harvey I'm a member for Bullsion Ward. Thank you very much anybody else? No good thank you um and as I said so if people could turn off their cameras until they are invited to speak please and make sure that your microphones are also muted until you speak. So if at any time the member leaves the meeting please make that fact known to me um or to the vice chair in the chat so that it can be recorded in the minutes. So members of the public are aware if a councillor is absent for any part of the presentation or debate about an agenda item then they may not vote on that item. Given the technological issues around virtual meetings we do make sure that we can try and get people back into the meeting so they've not missed anything obviously substantial we'll always check that as well with our legal advice and that's how we'll be running for the virtual meetings. We have several public speakers today so I'd just like to explain how public speaking works. The meeting is being broadcast live via the council's website and public speakers reminded that by participating in this meeting you are consenting to being broadcast and to the use of images and sound recordings for webcast and training purposes. As usual you will each have three minutes to address the committee either individually or together with one another during that three minutes. When you start speaking we'll start the timer please ensure you switch the microphone on before you speak. The timer will be displayed on the screen and when your time has elapsed we will ask you to conclude your speech. If you continue to speak we may mute you to enable proceedings to continue. Once you've finished speaking we may as members of the committee wish to ask you further questions for clarification so please be concise in your response and if there are no more questions you may leave the meeting and continue to watch the meeting via the webcast. And committee members have reminded that any questions to speakers should be for clarification purposes only. For the process for this will be as follows. I'll ask if there are any questions. If you do have questions please ask to speak in the chat function. The committee can only consider planning reasons for or against the application. The committee can't consider general observations about the development site. The committee cannot consider comments from public speakers made outside their allotted speaking time. Therefore the request that those registered do not interrupt outside their time. I as chair do have the ability to mute or remove participants as necessary. Once the committee has heard from all speakers and planning officers we will debate and form views on the application. The committee will then vote and the outcome is decided by a majority vote in the event of a tie I as chair have casting vote. When planning committee members vote please can ensure they identify themselves and speak into the microphones of the vote is understood by committee and those watching the webcast. Members are reminded that they should indicate whether they are for against or abstain when their name is called. We now go to the agenda item number two the end of the chair's announcements and apologies Ian. Thank you chair just to recap then apologies from councillors John Williams sorry John Bachelor and Judith Ruppeth and their substitutes are councillors Henry Batchelor and Eileen Wilson. Good thank you very much and noted and now in terms of declarations of interest do we have any declarations of interest members? Yes I do Chairman. Thank you Councillor Bradenham. I just wanted to say that I was on the planning committee when the application at full-born was considered at outline and but I come to the matter of fresh now looking at the reserve matters application. Thank you very much Councillor Bradenham and could you let me know if there are any others that wish to speak to this in terms of declarations? We have several firstly councillor Wright. Good councillor Nick Wright please. Thank you Chairman and I have exactly the same declaration of interest as on item five as I had at the last meeting and on the enforcement issue number 10 146 Cambridge Road Wimpol. I have attended two public meetings in Wimpol many years ago on this subject when going back to when I was planning portfolio holder so that was some time ago. Good thank you. The next speaker Chairman is Councillor Heather Williams. Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you Chairman it was just on agenda item five obviously that at the last meeting that did progress beyond just the introduction therefore I just thought it was important that we all make it clear that we're looking at that item afresh. Good thank you and I think that as you say Councillor Williams that applies to everybody yes. The next speaker is Councillor Toomey Hawkins Chairman. Councillor Toomey Hawkins. Dr Toomey Hawkins. Thank you Chair as you know I'm the local member but I've also been at meetings where the application was discussed as a parish councillor but I come to the matter afresh. Thank you. And Chairman the last one we have on the list is Councillor Deborah Roberts. Councillor Roberts. Yeah Chairman I think it's probably covered by Councillor Heather Williams but the the born and the long-standing one obviously I've been pasted to the previous discussions but come to the use today afresh. Thank you Chairman. Thank you yes and I think as I say I think that goes for all of the committee members who were present at those meetings I think you can say that applies to all of them for those items. Thank you very much and we come to agenda item four which is minutes of the previous meeting members. Do you have any comments on minutes of the previous meeting? In terms of accuracy Chairman this is Councillor Bradnum. I have no objection and I will raise the matter that I wanted to raise which relates to the enforcement report but it relates back to these minutes when we're considering the enforcement report. Thank you Councillor Bradnum and do we have anybody who'd like to speak to this to the minutes of the meeting? Yes Councillor Henry Batchelor. Yeah Councillor Batchelor. Yeah thank you Chair just a small item of pedency on the first page of the minutes and the right into apologies I think the word order's slightly jumbled up. Oh yes it was Chairman it says Councillor Judith Rippith sent apologies absence four and clearly that should say Councillor Judith Rippith sent apologies for absence. Good thank you Ian I think that will be Julie noted. Good members in terms of the agenda and the order of the agenda as Chair I would like for us to slightly reorder the items of on the agenda. Chairman before we proceed do we need to move to the meeting sorry thank you very much. Could we all accept the minutes of the previous meeting given that there was just a little bit of jumble of words within that? Agreed. Thank you everybody. So yes in terms of the substantive items on the agenda as Chair I would like to for us to consider agenda item six which is full-born land east of Tewesham Road. There is significant amount of public interest around this item and we've received multiple representations. There are quite a few people who are going to be speaking to this item and also knowing that the significant number of them are also key workers within the health sector. We have received information from the officers that they are advising a change to the officer recommendation which is a change to deferral. I would like us to consider this agenda item before agenda item five bring it to being the first item on our agenda in terms of the substantive issues so that we discuss as a committee we debate now a proposal whether to defer or to determine this application given that if there is a decision to defer that would mean that all of those people then could get on with you know the very important things they are doing. And I understand as Chair I am able to make that decision you know committee to put that forward and therefore treat agenda item six full-born land east of Tewesham Road first and given that what I would therefore like to hear is from our case officer Chris Carter if you could give us some explanation and background to the change in the reason score officer recommendation on this application. Yes thank you Chair good morning members just confirm I'm not the case officer but we do have the case officer with us. Members will have received correspondence from me yesterday evening setting out the proposed change in the recommendation for consideration this morning that being a recommendation for deferral of the application. There are two reasons for that change your recommendation firstly as set out in my correspondence to you all the council received draft copies of a legal challenge to any decision which may be made on this application today should it be determined that was received on Monday evening and whilst officers spent some time looking at that considering that yesterday we haven't been able to reach a position where we feel we can advise members in the level of detail that would be required. Further to that a separate representation was received yesterday in respect of drainage and flooding issues from a local resident that was passed on to the lead local flood authority yesterday morning for consideration and late yesterday afternoon the lead local flood authority also requested that the item be deferred in order to allow their more time to consider that additional information that had been provided. In the light of requests and a request from the applicant also for the matters to be deferred in order that these issues can be addressed officers have considered that the best advice we can provide the committee at the moment is to seek to defer this item in order that we can return the item to you once those matters have been resolved and we're able to advise you effectively. So chair those are the reasons for it but happy to answer any questions that members may have thank you. Chair thank you thank you Chris I'd just like to say we are now looking therefore on what's being referred to as agenda item six which is on page 49 of the committee's papers and this is application S3290 stroke 19 reserved matters are for the land east of tebisham road full borne and the proposal is for approval of matters reserved for appearance landscaping layout and scale following the outline planning permission which was given for the development of 110 dwellings with areas of landscaping and public open space and associated infrastructure works. The applicant castle field international limited the key material considerations would for this if it were to be determined would be compliance with the outline planning commission housing provision including affordable housing open space provision and the reserved matters would include layout scale appearance landscape biodiversity flood risk and drainage highway safety management roads and parking residential amenity heritage assets and other matters so there hasn't been a site visit it is a departure and the extension of time has been agreed to 18th of January 2021 was being brought to the committee because full borne parish council had requested that it be brought here the original officer recommendation in our papers was for approval and that has now been changed as a recommendation to deferral chairman we have a request to speak from councillor heather williams thank you councillor heather williams thank you chairman speaking in relation to the deferral so I had a when we were emailed last night I had a look at the at some of the dates again because I was worried given we'd already given an extension and it was the 18th of January whether we would be at risk at non-determination from the applicant however I am going to make an assumption but I would like this confirmed by officers that we don't consider this is going to be likely given that if they were to receive a refusal at any point then they will lose their outline planning permission given that they had to put their reserve matters application in before October 2019 and they did in in September 2019 so I would I would like confirmation around the status of of that please and also some explanation as to why as it was submitted the reserve matters application was put in in September 2019 and we're now in January 2021 the the purposes of this deferral is it to enable the applicant to provide further information because in my view if they've not provided adequate information and that's what we're waiting for then then tough tough luck and we judge it on the information that they have provided and if that's not sufficient then it's not sufficient and or is this some other other reason what I wouldn't want to see is us deferring this to enable to give the applicant more time they've had plenty of time to put their proposals forward and it should be judged accordingly and if they haven't provided the right information then you know that's their lookout thank you um and please bear with me everybody I just want to allow the the case officer Katie Christopher the leaders and whose principal planning officer and case officer for this to introduce herself. Katie Christopher the lead is here principal planning officer case officer for the application at Tevesham mode in Bourbon. Thank you very much so thank you very much for that Katie and apologies please bear with me everybody. So who would be responding to that those questions from Councillor Heather Williams so that be you. Sorry thank you chair yes I'm happy to respond firstly dealing with the issue of the extension of time when these issues arose during the course of yesterday we have been in contact with the applicant and as I said in my initial comments they have requested a deferral in order that both they and the council can consider any potential implications of the draft legal challenge so in the light of that I would be confident that they would be prepared to agree to a further extension of time if we were to request one in terms of the purpose of the deferral any challenge to a decision should a decision be made today would be a challenge against the decision of the council so the purpose of the deferral is for officers to have sufficient time to consider the potential risk of a challenge and to advise members accordingly and if we need to take any action to mitigate that risk to do so now that's that's the first thing the second thing is that the additional information provided by local residents in terms of flood risk is something that the lead local flood authority which members will know is part of the county council have considered yesterday but again don't feel they have sufficient time to provide the appropriate advice on that so there's a detailed technical matter there which the technical consultee needs to advise us on but also from the count our council's own perspective we need to have sufficient time to consider the the risk of challenge to any decision that might be made so those are the reasons that hopefully that clarifies but I'm happy to come back if required. Thank you and yes I just wanted to completely clarify that we weren't agreeing to a deferral to give the applicant more time if it's to give us our more ourselves more time because there are you know advice that's needed then then I will support the deferral I was just not not minded to do it to to help the applicant given the length of time that they've had thank you very much and councilmember Braden could you turn your camera off please sorry the chairman there's um we have a series of speakers who've asked to speak yeah um so um perhaps the first we ought to take although it's not the first in the line is is Mr Stephen Reed so thank you very much for our senior um legal officer thank you chair uh it was my understanding that councillor Heather Williams was suggesting that in the event of a refusal by planning committee then the outline planning commission would be lost it's my understanding that the applicant would be able to appeal any refusal by planning committee and it would only be on a appeal determination supporting a refusal that the outline consent would be lost if the appeal was successful then the outline would stand thank you for that clarification um councillor Braden the next speaker would be councillor Deborah Roberts thank you thank you chairman I think really we shouldn't waste any more time this morning I think it's been perfectly explained by senior planning officer and by legal officer and I move then chairman that we um support the recommendation for the borough so you would you like to yeah support that which is what I was just about to do sorry chairman did I jump your gun sorry if you want to propose it chairman I'm happy to second thank you thank you very much um for those who've also asked to speak is would you still like to speak before I make the proposal that we um you know a motion that we defer this item and take it to the vote yes okay so um we'll continue with the speakers who requested to speak so the speaker who has requested to speak is councillor Richard Williams thank you chair councillor Feing was actually before me I don't know if he saw I know but he hasn't asked to speak yeah I must admit I am a bit uncomfortable so I was wondering if I could just ask for clarification by what what we mean by officers taking steps to mitigate the risk of challenge um I'm a bit uncomfortable that we're deferring this so that we've got time to rebut all the points that have been made um against us in in in the the apparent or the claimed judicial review I'm not really sure I'm not very comfortable with that idea that we just defer so that we can you know um so the officer's decisions can be made more robust um so yeah clarification on that and I'm also not very happy about the flood authority which seems to completely given up um in the face of a challenge it rather suggests they haven't done their job properly um the first time around good um thank you Chris Carter would you like to yes thank you chair um councillor Williams I apologize if my choice of words was poor um I I didn't mean uh mean um what what your sort of uh how you've interpreted it uh the the purpose really was um to understand uh the legal challenge that's been made and whether or not um we need to advise the committee in a different way as a result of that um and given um unfortunately we only had the course of yesterday to to consider that we haven't been able to conclude those those discussions yet um so so again apologize if uh if I chose a poor form of words uh with regard to the the local flood authority um I take your point um I think the only the only thing I would say in response to that is um the additional information was only provided to us and therefore them yesterday morning um and therefore it's a short period of time but yes I think we will need to look into the advice that was given previously because obviously you will have noted that they were recommending no objection um and um I think they like we would like to take the opportunity if they can to review that position in the light of the additional information that's been provided given um how important that issue is for this particular scheme thank you chair and chairman we have a further we still don't know if councillor fein wishes to speak again but we do have a request from councillor martin carne so just to say um everyone to know that what I will be doing now um immediately is to be putting this as a motion to vote to either defer or to determine this application um councillor carne would do you still have a point you'd like to make or a question like to make before you can vote on that yes please um simply wanted to comment that actually there was more than this issue why it might wish to be deferred I had depending on what was said in it would have been said in any uh discussion I had reservations about the management of the uh meadow area which and the proposal sorry caps the card we won't go into a debate around the determination of the issue no but what I was going to say is that uh it's very possible that other other issues might wish to be referred so very much in favour of deferral but not simply for the reasons proposed there in in the by by the officers here there's further issues as well I think that might need to be considered that's all okay um haven't heard from councillor fein and therefore I'm understanding that um you're okay with us moving now to the motion the motion is to defer thank you for councillor fein is to defer the um consideration of this application to allow officers to have enough time to be able to um provide all of the guidance that's needed for committee to make a determination based on this recent information that's been provided so the motion that I'm doing is to defer this application and that's being seconded by councillor roberts is that right that's right chairman thank you thank you very much can I take that by affirmation um committee agree agree do you anybody who is against um that just so we can absolutely assure we've got it by affirmation anybody wishing to abstain thank you in terms of the decision therefore is to defer this agenda item I'd like to really thank all of those who've taken all the time to make representations especially those as we know who are um key workers and have taken the time to come along to this um and to provide all those representation as to all members of of the public obviously as well and thank you to officers for putting all the time in yesterday to bring us to this situation this morning thank you very much we've finished that agenda item and to those who have been waiting to um therefore very kindly for us to return to agenda item five now which is born the former gestamp factory um born airfield thank you which is page seven of our agenda so as I said this is agenda item five the former gestamp factory site in born airfield and the proposal is for a hybrid planning application consisting of full planning permission for phase one and outline planning permission with all matters reserved except access for phase two of the redevelopment of the former gestamp factory site at borned airfield for up to 26,757 square kilometers of commercial four space purposes associated car parking and service yards external earthworks attenuation basins and landscape and this application is subject to an environmental impact assessment the applicant the agio pension trust limited the key material considerations relate to the principle of development in this location whether the development meets the requirements of policy ss seven highway and transport matters impact on landscape design and appearance sustainability and drainage ecology and living conditions of local residents it's not a departure in terms of timing and extension of time has been agreed until the 15th of December 2020 but so far the applicant hasn't responded to request to agree a further extension of time application is brought to the committee because this is a major application the presenting officer is Kate poiser who will introduce herself and any other officers who may be responding and to concerns and considerations and questions and I think as committee knows this was deferred at the planning committee meeting on 9th of December and I'm sure our presenting officer will provide us the context for that thank you very much Kate and thank you chair and good morning everybody um I should just prepare the presentation right could you please confirm that you can see the presentation in front of you please okay I should just enlarge that right um this application was deferred at the last meeting of the planning committee this was due to an additional consultation period inadvertently being added to the public access website when letters were sent out notifying people that the application will be considered at the planning committee the additional consultation period has now expired one additional present representation has been received as a result of this and that is from born parish council their comments are included and considered within the updated officer report to committee which you will all have seen I shall now move on to the next item next slide this slide shows the site within its context the site is outlined in red it includes the access road from the cul-de-cotte roundabout on the St Nirts Road known as Wellington Bay the St Nirts Road and the A428 run east west across the top of the slide the village to the east is high fields cul-de-cotte separated by the site by small woodland to the west is the david ball industrial site to the northeast corner lie in agricultural fields and born airfield airfield lies further to the eastern to the south part of an old runway is visible running diagonally to the west the application site lies within the strategic site of born airfield new village the slide shows a spatial framework diagram taken from the born airfield new village supplementary planning document the application site lies within the purple area and occupies most of this space the remainder of the purple area includes a phase three land of the custom site and the david ball site the pale yellow areas would accommodate the proposed 3,500 new dwellings the dark yellow for mixed juice the large red area would be the village centre with shops and other services and the small red circle for neighbourhood help dark green is the existing woodland and the light greens for green corridors open spaces and strategic landscaping except for the purple area the rest of the site is owned by countryside properties and the tailor family the separate application for planning commission has been made for this land it is in an outline application for the new village whilst it has not yet been determined it has progressed a significant way through the planning negotiations and will be the subject of a special meeting to members the supplementary planning document for born airfield new village includes the existing employment site and requires there to be good connectivity between it and the new village the applicants for both the good stamp planning application and the new village have liaised throughout the process to achieve this end the access parameter plan for the new village has indicative links into the employment site and these are reflected in the layout of the custom site plan which will be displayed later the green dash lines on this plan are indicative of those links this is an aerial photograph of the site taken from above the a 428 looking south the application site is here the born new village site includes the villages in the foreground and the villages and the fields the other side of the application site and includes the woodland beyond it also includes a narrow strip of land on the edge of the woodland and the field in the corner as you can see application site is enveloped by the new village site highfield cauldron court is over here here is the access road called wellington way it is in the ownership of countryside properties and the tailor family the application the applicant for the custom site has right of access over it wellington way will be reconfigured as part of the new village scheme and would include segregated facilities for pedestrians and cyclists it is intended that it would be implemented with the first development phase of that scheme this is the parameter plan showing three phases of the development of the former custom site the blue is phase one and includes details the yellow phase two is in outline and the orange hatch area is phase three it does not form part of the application needs to be submitted to later date the green is strategic landscaping black is existing access this is an illustrative master plan the details for phase one are shown and the details for phase two are indicative only two green corridors the set are shown the central corridor and the land to the east of the site the central corridor is here and to the east of the site the eastern corridor would contain an attenuation basin a pedestrian cycle path and planting unit three about this area it is the largest unit on the site and it is intended for a named occupant Cambridge design partnership both of the pedestrian stroke cycle paths would link up to intended paths beyond the site and into the new village scheme surfacing would be taken to the rear of the units small units which may well be occupied by local businesses are to the south shared parking is to the north the site and some to the south a few spaces would serve the industrial units cycle parking is scattered in various locations around the site the layland I hedge we saw in the aerial photograph earlier would be replaced by a new planting tree belt along the northern boundary to create a lasting screen the land beyond is intended for mixed juice development and to the new village scheme this slide shows the two main next one sorry folks this slide shows the two main elevations of units three the remaining elevations are largely blank this would be the largest unit on site measuring just over 14 meters high it would be clad in shades of grey with gold highlighting the insides of some of the things this is the multi-storey car park that would occupy the northeast corner of the site as you can see it is just two stories high and if you look at the ground level you could see that it would be partly sunk into the ground and this is the final slide this is an artist's impression of units one and two the north facing elevations with a green corridor running between them that's all thank you thank you very much Kate so do we have any clarification questions members I've got one chair thank you chair um I don't know if you can see me but um it's rising from the officer's report um and I wanted to ask for a bit more detail about why condition one that was there in December um is no longer there um about this cycle path um because I must say I'm a little a little bit concerned that the applicants as the report says it was drawn their support for condition one um and I'm not really sure why we've just we've just agreed to that if we thought it was necessary on balance in December I'm not really sure why we should think it's not now just simply because the applicants have withdrawn their support for that condition it seems quite important to me um that we uh that we have proper cycle links um and the other point I wanted to get some clarification on is the fact that there is as the report says uh no pedestrian and cycle access down Wellington Way um and and why we aren't requiring that either I'd like a little bit more detail on that because that to me seems quite quite important the the report seems to say well we just have to hang on um for the housing development and the housing development will do it um I'd like some clarification on why why it can't be in this application thank you thank you very much Kate thank you chair now condition one uh when the applicant withdrew their support for providing uh works to the footpath uh within Highfields Codicot the highway authority were re-consulted it seemed that over time there had been several attempts to um gain this additional work to the highway under various development schemes and um they'd all been unsuccessful for various reasons and um the highway authority felt that whilst it would be desirable to have this work carried out at the end of the day it wasn't necessary something that is required of a condition is that it is necessary um and they they felt that they too could no longer support the requirement for that work due to the difficulty of providing it uh so that's condition one the next question um relates to the accessway Wellington Way now Wellington Way it does form part of the application site but it is not within the ownership of the applicant it is countryside properties the applicant for born new village who owns it and um it is not possible to require the applicant to provide a footway alongside that alongside Wellington Way because it's not land within their ownership and it's not land within their control so we can't do that uh however the the road Wellington Way is wide enough to be able to accommodate a cycling with on within the carriageway it's wide enough for cyclists to travel along them um so it cannot be provided so the question is do we refuse planning permission for that reason and it is felt that um there's two things really one is that it will be provided in the future when born new village um it is uh started under construction and the second one is there is an extent planning permission on the Gestamp site for the redevelopment of the site for industrial units which could still be implemented today and does not have any better facilities for cyclists and pedestrians than the come up Wellington Way so adding those matters together has resulted in a recommendation for approval so can I just thank you just so through the chair thank you thank you through the chair can I ask a very quick follow could he not be part of a 106 the upgrading Wellington Way um it it may it may have been possible but you'd have to have had you'd have to have the willingness of countryside properties as well um which we don't have that in front of us at the moment thank you very much I'm sure it will come up in the debate that's good in terms of the clarification thank you very much councillor Bradham do we have any other speakers the clarification yes we have councillor Henry bachelor and then myself thank you councillor bachelor thank you chairman I think my question links very much in with councillor Richard Williams's question um so in the officers report item 47 on the council transportation there's a still a holding objection um regarding sustainable links to surrounding villages with the explanation being the applicant has been able to overcome these I mean given the fact that we the one of the conditions was removed from the December's report I just wanted to ask clarity from the officer that they feel the applicant has done everything they can to overcome this objection um I think the officer may have answered it in response to councillor Richard Williams but a just bit of clarity for me would be helpful thank you thank you very much and and Kate if there's anybody else you want to bring in on any of these other applications or yourself that's fine okay thank you now with regard to links pedestrian and cycle links there has been quite a lot of liaison with countryside properties in relation to the new born village and there is a master plan for that and the applicant for the Gestamps site has sought to provide links through their site that would link into the master plan for the new village um the uh the the two cycle paths and footways that go run north south through the site at the central one and the eastern one will link into the intended um foot path cycle ways through born new village and there is also intended to be within the the countryside scheme a east west link that will go into the Gestamps site and across the fields to high fields cul-de-cotte so the Gestamps site their scheme takes that into account and provides a link into the countryside land thank you so just just clarification of the chair so there isn't in paragraph 47 there isn't a change to um you know the removal of any objections as a result of the change to condition one that doesn't change what's there in in what thank you okay and councillor Bradnam thank you chairman um i just wanted to clarify and i'm struggling to check whether as i recall question was asked um previously about foul water management and there's no condition in the current um officer report and i just wanted to check with the officer whether that whether foul water treatment has been dealt with under the uh outline or whether it's under this application thank you i i do believe there is there are there is at least a condition relating to that if you just bear with me i'll try and get the report in front of me so i can see where it is members will appreciate i'm asking that because we know that the um there have been questions about the ability of the pumping station at the south of high fields cul-de-cotte to to the capacity of that pumping station right um now condition 22 in the recommendation flood risk and drainage that relates to um a drainage report from consultants bread books report and it requires the uh the drainage system to link into that to be in compliance with the breadborne report but this is referring to surface water is it not it does include foul drainage as well so just everyone to know we're on page at 39 with condition 22 is that right Kate that we're looking at that's right i mean we do also have condition 26 which relates to surface water drainage but condition 22 the breadbrook report relates um to foul drainage as well okay okay thank you very much thank you thank you do we have any further questions for clarification for the case officer no we don't chairman okay thank you so now we'll go to um the public speakers and as i understand we have um representing for the applicant mike beadman and the agent jeremy hson and i understand that you're going to share the three minutes between you is that right that's correct good and so would you like to introduce yourselves first then please i'm jeremy hson of hson developments thank you very much and do we have mike beadman uh yes i'm mike beadman from kainbridge design partnership good and so who will start between you jeremy hson thank you very much so you you do have three minutes to be shared between you thank you very much good morning chair councillors i'm jeremy hson of hson developments my company was appointed by the site owner the angio pension trust two years ago and the vision was to create a development that would exceed what a standard industrial estate offers in every possible way we wanted to create a place that would attract both local industrial businesses and larger technology companies we wanted a highly sustainable development that looked amazing and that would attract high quality companies and their staff that development is called born quarter it was a visit to the high tech campus in eindhoven netherlands in march 2019 that gave the team the inspiration for the design that is the subject of this application we decided that the landscape led park and set using very high quality materials would enable us to develop builds that are immensely flexible and could provide both standard industrial units through to buildings that can incorporate large office and the burrow tree areas all that staff and all who choose to come to born quarter will appreciate the environment that we are creating that includes a cafe crash gym and outdoor trim trails we're delighted we've signed our first tenant the cambridge design partnership born quarter will be deliver much needed commercial space on what is currently a brownfield sign and will deliver over 800 jobs to the area thank you chair thank you chair and members i'm mike beadman director and one of the two founders of cambridge design partnership um we've grown cambridge design partnership in toft since it was founded at almost a consistent 20 per cent per annum since 1996 and we've done this by adaptive adapting and diversifying our engineering consultancy and making use making us one of the top four consultancies in the cambridge area as of today we're 203 people we've been based in toft from the outset and our countryside location is an important part of our image for both our clients and most of them being international and our employees most of whom obviously live locally since 2016 we've been looking for potential new sites we've now overpacked our site in toft and i'm sure it's come up at the planning committee several times um and we have temporary buildings we've now taken on additional space in barton out in cambridge and most recently in sosten just to cope with our expansion and this has given us quite um problems from sort of distancing and everything else it's made us quite inefficient although has enabled us to remain very covet friendly in a bizarre way um while we've looked at options within camborn and sosten and elsewhere they're all single buildings um and without any scope to expand born quarter offers us the perfect opportunity to regroup into a unit of 56 000 square feet um and then we have the option to expand further into an adjacent building in the second phase development in a few years time over the last year we've worked with interior design teams and architects to fit out the labs and offices and workshops from the design for born quarter such that we can move in in 2022 which will barely be soon enough uh for our employees born quarter is again west of cambridge it's almost the same distance from central cambridge but with even better cycle access and other transport options come off so it offers us more advantages as well thank you for your time thank you thank you both as well for managing that task to present those within three minutes and um are there any clarification questions from members um cancer dr timmy hawkins would like to speak chairman yes dr hawkins uh thank you chair um i just wanted to ask uh mr acheson if you would explain a bit more to the committee why they went to eindhoven um to get inspiration so to speak well uh thank you um to me uh eindhoven was um probably most of people know as well the philips uh industry was originally based uh and uh when they moved all their production uh into the far east uh it was a an area that had um to reinvent itself and huge unemployment and it's been the um engine house of um high tech and industrial uh business level and it's been immensely successful they've got leading um architects and design ideas it's very inspirational you go there and you see buildings that you don't really see in the uk at all so we felt born quarter warranted something different we think we're delivering something different and the the inspiration came from that so thank you and a follow-up if i may to um mr beadman um i know i mean i've been fortunate to see uh kenry design grow because uh toft used to be in my patch until 2018 um and i just wondered i know you know as a local business you were keen to stay in the area what was it about this site that appealed to you um it's the um largely the ability for expansion um but also you know we have well in the summer probably we have 40 to 50 people that cycle to work um i want to keep them happy so you know alternative transport methods i think we've we've just invested in two move bikes or electric bikes just to allow us to get to and from barton where we've just opened an office for the next 18 months um so it's the it's that ability the transport links and also the we want to avoid um being within cambridge because we just everybody that works for us enjoys the fact that we actually go against any traffic um you know we we we're not adding to the congestion within the city getting out of cambridge in the morning is quite simple um so when we can come to work which at the moment is quite tricky um that's that's one of the advantages of being out in the countryside and obviously you know we have quite a few people from cambourne so caldercurt toft they're very similar to our current geography from that transport link and then for our clients you know considerably better facilities in that area with the hotels in cambourne and uh links back onto the m11 down to airports and so on thank you thank you chair thank you thank you very much are there any further clarification questions if not thank you very much for your time thank you and we move now to hear from born parish council and so we have councillor deso brian uh yes uh thank you you have do you have your camera on i am just about to turn my camera on which i think it's on now thank you wonderful thank you you were with us before and you're here again thank you very much so you do understand the the timing and the way that this works i do i do thank you thank you so much so could we yes if you want to start can i just start off by saying that i do have the authority of the paris council to make the comments here today uh so i think the um the piece that i sent through in the interim between the deferral and now covers the points that we really want to make and while we are not against this this development in principle we are against we are we object on the basis of the issues to do with transport and we've we've already touched in the previous speaker's comments about the issues around transport and it is about to do it to do with sustainability and about choices for public transport and we have an issue around public public transport because as you all probably know the camborn to cambridge busway has been substantially delayed and there's still a significant question mark over what and when it will be delivered and i noticed in the applicants transport assessment they made much of the the possibilities and the advantages of a public transport system in the camborn to cambridge busway and the 428 corridor they mentioned it probably eight or ten times but we don't know what's going to be delivered and we don't even know whether something will be delivered so we have significant reservations around uh what is actually going to happen in terms of public transport the second comment relates to um a discrepancy as we see it between the number of parking places 624 over both phases that we be delivered and the number of car journeys into the site they're saying 124 in the morning rush hour so we don't understand and we would like some clarification on how if you're going to have 124 cars sorry you need 624 car parking spaces and this this speaks again to whether or not we are truly committed to having public transport options for sites like this and then finally the issue around the cumulative development impact because there's going to be a born airfield new settlement site as well and in fact to mike beadman's point about congestion and and and the fact that they they run against traffic coming from you know their their staff coming from and cambridge to toft congestion will become an issue because we already know there was something like 9 000 car journeys generated by camborn you know and so we're talking about maybe 7 500 car journeys being generated by born airfield that even taking consideration of the car journeys that 800 people on this new site will generate so I would ask the committee to look at this issue of deliverability of a sustainable site when there are so many question marks around the high quality public transport system and also issues to do with provision of car parking which seems to suggest that the car will still be the main means of transport for this site so we would like those things to be considered before the application is given or even conditioned before the application is given permission thank you thank you very much and thank you for keeping within the time and for confirming that you do have the authority to speak for the parish council thank you very much members do we have any clarification questions nope I don't think so thank you very much and I'm sure members will be picking up those points as we go into into the debate thank you thank you um in terms of local members um we have councillor dr toomey hawkins would you like to speak now or at the end of the debate uh chair I will speak uh during the debate if I may during the debate yeah so at the end of it yeah thank you thank you do we have um I think that's all in terms of other local members to speak thank you very much so members opening this up to debate now do we have any speakers we don't have any speakers so far chairman except for uh except for councillor toomey hawkins thank you councillor toomey hawkins you would like to speak now then as local member uh actually chairman we do now have councillor Richard Williams so if you wished to take him first before councillor hawkins that's up to you I put my hand up because I thought we were in the debate but happy to um happy to let councillor williams go thank you and so councillor ritchie Williams will speak first and then councillor hawkins we are in the debate so you will be able to speak thank you thank you chair yes I was going to say yeah I might I am intending to speak in the general debate so um rather than ask for clarification um I just want to say I mean I'm I'm not very happy about the removal of condition one um I take on board the officers clarification but but it is a bit unsatisfactory that the highways authority again seems to take flight um at the first sign of challenge I mean either they regarded that condition as necessary or they didn't um and whether the applicant supported it or not should be irrelevant to that consideration so I don't think it's very satisfactory that they just changed their mind because the applicants changed their mind it looks like they're just taking the path of least resistance um and that you know one way or other they were wrong I thought they're wrong now or they were wrong in the first place um so um so I'm not very happy with that and I think personally I'd like that condition to go back in but it'd be interesting to see what other members um think um about that um I'm also a little bit disappointed about the the fact that a 106 doesn't sound like it's been explored on Wellington way I mean if we are serious about you know minimizing car journeys then um that that that access road is directly relevant um to this site and and it would be good if we had um the necessary infrastructure to enable people to cycle walk um to the site from the start rather than waiting for another development which may or may not come um come come more quickly so um I am quite concerned about those things and I'd be very interested here if any other members share those concerns as well thank you very much chair thank you thank you council bradden and do we have any other speakers yes we have um well you may wish to take councillor to me hawkins now but we also have councillor peter feign and councillor deborah will it robert's thank you councillor dr me hawkins chair considering I have quite a lot of knowledge about this site perhaps I could speak at the end and also make comments or pick off some of the issues that have been raised fine thank you very much um councillor peter feign thank you chair this is the third attempt on this particular site um as we hear a visionary concept supported by a key local firm needing accommodation of this sort I was very interested to hear the concerns of the parish council um in relation to the transport issues I noted mike peakman's comment that a key concern was to secure better cycle access and other transport options for staff within the current constraints um and I find find it interesting that this is accessible by sustainable transport both to employees from Cambridge and those from Camborn and of course it will be important to have local employment in place if and when we consider further developments on born airfield on the condition one that's been mentioned I have looked at the reasons given for the change here the technical reasons which have satisfied the the highway authority and I think we should accept that because there will be scope to improve this later on so for those reasons I think it is time that we should as recommended give approval to this development thank you very much um councillor debber Roberts you can turn your camera off councillor feign thank you Deborah are you able to speak chairman while councillor Roberts is trying to sort out her laptop councillor Williams has asked to speak as well councillor Heather Williams thank you chairman I'm happy to speak but if councillor Roberts is having technical issues should should I wait a while I'll have to repeat it for her or she won't go to vote thank you very much can I can we confirm that councillor debber Roberts is able to hear us and participate sorry you want to confirm whether debber Roberts is able to hear you yes if she's she's able to hear so she'll be able to hear Heather Williams while she's sorting out whether she can speak if councillor Roberts if you can hear us maybe make some sort of indication within the chat or alternatively if you can hear me then go on to the live stream um I'm just trying to see if she's dropped out is it Roberts like the radios right chair can chair councillor Roberts no longer appears in my list of attendees so she may have dropped out yeah it appears it appears that she might have dropped out so what I would like to suggest is as we've agreed in the protocol if we've just give a couple of moments now to enable councillor Roberts to to rejoin um so what I'd say is it's 11 19 now so if we um 11 21 if we um all just make sure we are still here and ready to continue the debate if we've managed to sort out the problem with councillor Roberts hi chair I've sent her a couple of requests to join um so if she has uh sort of got lost somewhere then um yeah she now has the link sent to her again um do you know if anyone is is trying to call her or anything like that to try and establish what's what's going on does um anybody have councillor Roberts number chairman I do um I can try and contact her thank you if you would yeah I've I've reinvited her um which is all I can really do for my side which means that whatever um address she joined from uh she should get an email or some sort of notification um if it's been lost but yeah um I think the best bet is to wait and see if we can get hold of her by a telephone thank you Liam yeah it's really important see if we can bring her back in yeah no problem and chairman I've just been in contact with councillor Roberts and apparently she's had a power cut um which is a bit drastic so I think perhaps um I think Deborah we'll have to proceed without you okay okay right oh thank you Deborah she could dial in if she if she wanted to try and in the dialing number yes okay that's the point um sorry you just try and find that sorry Deborah Deborah it's me you could dial in um Liam has sent I'm just trying to find the the specific dial in information um to I can email it to her or something oh but then if there's a power cut maybe sorry of course she can't see the dial in number because she's had a power cut so she said don't worry proceed without her because okay no problem it's sort of catastrophic loss as it were thank you so um and Catherine have you just let her know that if she does manage to you know if the power does come back on and she does come in that she lets us know is in the chat and we can then know where we are in terms of the proceedings and what her participation beyond that would would be um it would be wonderful if she could rejoin at some point during the meeting thank you very much to Councillor Bradman and to um Liam for helping with that thank you everybody for your patience and um yeah poor Councillor Roberts we do hope that um to be able to resolve that that issue um so in continuing we do have um Councillor Heather Williams thanks very much thank you chairman um so so listening to the the speakers we can we can hear that there's um a lot of people that are within easily sort of psyched in commuter distance and that does make me concerned about the issues that Councillor Richards Williams has raised and the changes that are made there I do feel that there are even if not conditioned there are mechanisms such as section 106 or unilateral undertakings etc that could be could be used and I I don't think we've explored enough of those options to be able to sort of say that it's not doable um just on the applicant's resistance um I do think the parish council has made valid valid points around the transport as well um it does feel a little disjointed um and there is a reliance on things that um aren't quite at a developed stage that we could realistically rely on them so some you could be argued that it is slightly premature to be to be looking at this um so I'll be very listening very carefully to what the local member says because obviously she has um a lot more experience and what have you of this site and and have meetings etc so I um I remain on the fence chairman but they are my concerns um but we'll be listening very carefully to the local member thank you very much councillor Braden and we have any other speakers yes chairman there's me and then councillor bachelor uh and of course councillor Hawkins um so I just wanted to um agree with councillor Fein that although the matters to do with access are regrettable I think we should proceed excuse me um but my concern is that we're relying um for pedestrian accessibility on an application um that that may not come you know that has not yet come forward and I'm concerned that actually accessibility ideally ought to be established at the outset so it just seems very unfortunate that this might impact the use of public transport that the employees at this business site use and I think it's very a great shame but I think nevertheless we should proceed probably um councillor bachelor is the next speaker chairman thank you councillor Henry bachelor thank you chairman yeah I share a similar view to that of councillor Fein I mean my main concern um was the holding objection from the county transportation but having quizzed the officer on that and having heard the response uh yeah I mean I'm satisfied enough to I think make a decision on this now um which will be which will be supporting the application so unless I hear any strong views the other way presumably from councillor Hawkins I will be supporting thank you thank you um so then we just have councillor Toomey Hawkins chairman thank you councillor Dr Toomey Hawkins uh thank you very much chair um and members um I mean as I said earlier you know I've I know a lot about this site it's it's been a long-standing employment site which actually was quite problematic for high fields and for the council due to the noise that TK used to generate so when the former owners you know decided to stop operations and get an information for a new you know all singing all dancing quiet factory yeah you know there was there was a party in the village basically um but they didn't build that instead this site has been sold off um to DAGO pensions which is great in the sense that it is still an employment site so it has planning permission excuse me currently as an employment site um and the current planning permission that it has has nothing to do with come on to Cambridge Bosway um or you know this this the strict uh applications that we're trying to impose now however um if I take the point of the come on to Cambridge Bosway I mean let me let me step back this site is unique in the sense that it is surrounded by land it does not own okay so at the minute people from Kaulikot Khan cycle and the discussion seems to not understand that there already is a cycle path along Highfields Road yes it could do with improvement what there is and people do cycle how do you think we get to the bus stop we walk and we cycle Wellington Way yes people still walk along it because when bond market happens that's what they do and if you look at paragraph 71 on page 24 it does state that and I quote the applicant and their agent have been in regular discussions with countryside properties for the purpose of providing a coordinated approach so whilst there might be a delay in the C2C we know that Borneo field is not going to be brought forward or cannot be brought forward in full until the C2C is in place so that is something that this applicant cannot control so in my view I don't see that we can impose on them something that they have no control over as you will see Kaulikot Parish Council does support the application and you know they have been in contact with us in the village they even asked you know about the you know history of the village if they could incorporate some of it within the within the site I think what Mr. HSC probably didn't say to you is that they did revisions on the original proposal that they brought forward to us because they talked to us and I will say this that I wish lots of developers will do that in the way that HSC has done which is why you find Kaulikot Parish Council supporting it and I recognize the objection from Bond but I'm saying that that is not something we can impose on them because it is not within their control so for me I am happy to support this application and especially because in some respects we see the way in which you know we can work together as a community whilst HSC was talking to us as a community the owner of Canary design partnership was looking for space and mentioned it to me and I said ah I know somewhere that might be useful for you so you can call me a matchmaker but that's what happened so I put them in touch with HSC and this what we have before us today is a result of that working together of communities developers local members and I will put this up as an example of how we should be working to get the type of developments we want in the beginning there wasn't anything for small businesses on that side but now look at it they have listened to us and have provided spaces that small businesses you know your one-man bands and things like that can use again taking note of the needs of the of the district and of the community so I would say to my fellow members this is one that we need to support so thank you there are no further speakers chairman thank you very much vice chair so members what I've heard is there are some sort of concerns about you know the removal of that condition and the sustainable transport of issues that were raised by born parish council others who are on the fence that you know they were they're minded to approve this application I think it is time now with no further requests to speak that we go to a vote and so the vote is in terms of the officer recommendation which is approval of this application and I will now do a roll call and ask each of you therefore to register register your vote we do have um a comment that's been put in the chat but this the chat is not for members of the of the public so we'll continue with the vote as we're moving forward I'm going to call out each of your names in terms of members Stephen Rees I see in your planning lawyer yes um sorry chair it's just that you have recognised that some members have have reservations I think therefore that before you take the vote you should establish from those members who will vote against their reasons for refusal thank you very much Stephen yes um as I understand if those who are considering refusing the application from what you have said within speaking that would be in terms of highway and transport matters especially around sustainability transport is that correct or are there other issues that you were raising those who are minded to reject the application I shall be voting against chair um for those reasons I think it is reasonable and necessary to have a condition to upgrade the cycle way um and the other transport points you've made thank you councillor Richard Williams um Stephen is that fine we're moving ahead with that yeah so I think we're going to move to the vote now before you proceed there's a request to speak from councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins and also from Chris Carter so could I hear from Chris Carter first please thank you chair uh yes it was just to uh just to clarify that reason should should the vote go against the recommendation um and I think what I heard from councillor Richard Williams was um his concerns about the inadequate sustainable transport connectivity uh both uh to and from the site and within the uh the settlement of highfields called the cot um is that correct councillor Williams that's correct thank you thank you very much for that clarification um councillor is that I'm moving to the vote if that's okay chairman yes before you proceed just to clarify the recommendation I've been hunting for is actually on page 32 paragraph after paragraph well strangely after paragraph 103 but anyway it's on page 32 thank you vice-chair so I will go to the vote now as we were going to do that this is on the officer recommendation to approve and grant planning permission I'm going to do a roll call and so when I do the roll call please turn on your camera wait two seconds and and then say fall against or abstain call first of all councillor Henry bachelor for chairman chairman sorry to be a nuisance but could I just ask you for clarification having found the recommendation I found that the first condition is for a pedestrian refuge on Wellington way now are we clear that that is part of the land that is in their control well this is talking about a pedestrian refuge on the Wellington arm of the Caldercott Randerpout now I thought we just said that that land is not in their control Mr Carter's put his camera on so sorry chair through you um sorry I put my camera on before putting speak please in the chat but um that relates to land within the public highway so it's the arm of the roundabout so where pedestrians would cross there rather than on Wellington way where it's in the private ownership of countryside so it's land within the highway hence the condition that's the that's recommended thank you very much for that clarification sorry to interrupt your new chair yeah I think we're in the middle of the voting so if there had been a query we should have done that before we moved to to the vote on this one so um just to repeat we've had councillor Henry bachelor who has said four councillor Anna Bradnum four councillor Martin Khan four councillor Peter Fane four councillor Dr Toomey Hawkins four councillor Heather Williams against councillor Dr Richard Williams against councillor Eileen Wilson four councillor Nick right thank chairman not voting in line with my registered interest in the site thank you very much yeah and myself um councillor Peter Halings I'm four and we have councillor Deborah Roberts who is not with us in the meeting at the moment so we have seven votes four um two votes against and one member not voting um because of the um issues that he would mention first councillor Nick right so this motion has been carried and planning commission has been granted for this application thank you everyone um I'm going to suggest that we have a short break we've been going we do have some health reasons for members in the committee and before we then go on to the next items I just suggest that we take a short break so it's 11 40 um and I suggest it's just a five minute break that's okay so that we come back at 11 45 agreed thank you Liam um are you there Liam sorry yeah I was muted that's okay so do do we keep live or we um stop the live transmission while we're just having the short break uh if it's for five minutes I'll just advise everyone to mute their microphones and um turn the cameras off uh yeah I think that's probably the best thing thank you very much and and if you could lower your hand please um and then raise it again if after the break you would you think we still need to speak thank you I can I can lower his hands thank you yeah just to be aware everyone that is still live even though for five minutes we've taken a break so yeah thank you everybody if you just mute your microphones and turn your um cameras off if you like thank you members it's um now 11 45 can I just check that you are all here and with us so that we can continue with the agenda I'll do it but everybody's here so um Councillor Henry Bachelor still here chair thank you Councillor Anna Bradnam present Councillor Martin Kahn Councillor Peter Fane Councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins here chair thank you I'm assuming Councillor Deborah Roberts still not with us I don't see her Councillor Heather Williams yeah thank you Councillor Dr Richard Williams here chair thank you that's Eileen Wilson present thank you Councillor Nick Wright I had some you myself Councillor Peter Fane I see you're with us now present thank you and Councillor Martin Kahn Councillor Bradnam do you have Martin Kahn's number oh sorry I'm here that's fine thank you okay so we're all present thank you very much thank you also to members of the public and to officers we're now um continuing with the agenda we're at agenda item seven which is on page 95 of the committee papers this is um about application S 3215 stroke 19 and the discharge of conditions in long standard for the retreat fuse lane long stanton um discharge of condition four for foul water drainage and condition five surface water drainage of the planning permission S stroke 2937 stroke 16 for application the applicant is Mr Jerry Cadu of Landbrook Homes Limited the key material considerations for us committed today around foul water drainage surface water drainage and flood risk and there was no site visit given the the Covid's conditions at the moment it's not a departure and the decision due by 11th of December 2019 and this has been referred to committee on the basis of a parish council objection third party objections and the level of public interest in this application presenting officer is Lewis Tomlinson who wasn't very happy we took a little break it seems by the by the chat but Lewis and the recommendation of the officer is that this members are requested to support this application as I understand Lewis Tomlinson yes do you want to introduce yourself thank you chair um Lewis Tomlinson principal planner and case officer for this application would you like me to proceed with the presentation thank you very much yes sure I'll just share my screen so if I could just check that members can see that in front of them great thank you yes so the site is um within the development framework of on stanton village it's known as the retreat lies outside of conservation area and sits to the rear of the retreat existing bungalow of late 1960s construction extent plan permission exists for demolition of this bungalow and replacement of two dwellings to the west of the application site are two recently constructed dwellings the application site is currently residential garden associated with the retreat and benefits and planning consent for the erection of free bedroom bungalow with parking so that's just an aerial site view so the site in question today is this element so the rear of the site there's the existing bungalow and this has plan permission to be demolished an erection of two dwellings here and the bungalow back here the application site is accessed off the high street via fuse lane so we've got high street just here just apologies I'll put a laser pointer on so it's clearer so this is the high street the site is accessed off the high street down fuse lane immediately to north of the garden lies an existing watercourse ditch which outfalls into long stanton brook so the ditch is along here the site lies within flood zone one and therefore has a low probability of flooding from rivers and sea the environmental agency service floodwater map shows that this site is an area of low to very low service water flood risk long stanton brook is shown to be nearby at a medium to high risk of service water flooding so plan permission was previously allowed on appeal for the erection of a free bedroom dwelling with parking um september 2018 this current application seeks to discharge condition for of that permission which requires submission of full details of the foul water drainage strategy for written approval by the local planning authority the application also seeks discharge condition five which requires submission of full details of the proposed service water drainage both from the building itself and from posed driveway area for written approval by the local planning authority both conditions were imposed um on the consent by the planning inspector in order to prevent flooding so I just quickly run through the plans for the approved bungalow so as you can see in front of you these are the elevations this is the approved floor plan and this is the approved site plan so the application was submitted to and validated by the council on 16th september 2019 delegated decision was issued on the 28th of october 2019 confirming discharge both conditions four and five subject to the installation of the foul water and service water drainage systems in accordance with the approved details this decision was subject to judicial review from an interested third party who wished to submit comments on the proposed foul and service water drainage scheme prior to the local planning authorities determination of the application a consent order was issued on the 12th of may 2020 caution the council's delegated decision to discharge both conditions dated 28th of october 2019 the application subsequently being passed back to local planning authority for reconsideration and to allow for third party comments to be submitted these third party comments since being received and are summarized within the report officers can concern this application has been subject to the re-consultation as required including further re-consultation for and receipt of additional submissions from the applicant um this application has been referred to committee on the basis of a parish council objection third party objections and the public interest in the application members will recall considering this application discharged both conditions at the 14th of october 2020 planning committee meeting the committee resolved to defer the application to allow a further 14 day public consultation to take place this was to ensure that third parties were given additional opportunity to comment on the stand tech drainage review which is attached to this report as appendix a this review was commissioned by the greater camber shared planning service to provide further specialist drainage advice in relation to the application it recommends that both conditions four and five can be discharged the stand tech drainage review has been available on public access since 24th of august 2020 but further to the committee resolution the additional consultation was carried out on the 10th of december to seek third party comments on the review document i can confirm this consultation period expired on 24th of december 2020 no further representations were received so as discussed the proposal seeks to discharge foul drainage in the foul drainage condition and the details of this is the foul drainage into an existing foul sewage sewer in fused lane service water drainage proposal is to discharge service water into attenuation tank located within the rear garden of the dwelling a hydro brake flow control chamber is shown at the outfall to the proposed storage attenuation tank which discharges to the existing water core stitch to the north driveway seven dwelling is proposed as a gravel driveway operating operating as an infiltration feature the greater camber shared planning service has appointed expert advice on drainage matters to allow the local planning authority to fully consider submission details provided by the applicant to consider any third party comments and to assess the proposed scheme for the found service water drainage at the site having full regards to adopted national and local planning policy as well as publish and acknowledge approaches and best practice as already mentioned the full copy of the report prepared by the appointed consultant stand tech is provided at appendix a which includes details of the qualifications of the consultant and provide no advice to the local planning authority long stand to parish council objects to discharge condition five third party representations have been received objects into discharge of both condition four and five numerous concerns have been raised as summarized in respect of technical details relating to proposed foul water and service water drainage according to the proposals with the service water drainage hierarchy accordance of the proposals with adopted local plan policies cc slash seven cc slash eight cc slash nine as well as national policy and guidance lack of information that the proposals will increase water runoff into long stand and brick increase in flood risk and that the proposed service water will be greater than existing runoff rate for this site as undeveloped and that the proposed outfall into the existing water course is outside of the red line application both officers and the appointed drainage consultant are satisfied that the proposed submission details are in accordance with adopted national and local policy which is outlined in detail in the officer reports it is considered that it's been satisfactorily demonstrated that the scheme provides viable and fully justified foul and service water drainage strategy that will not increase flood risk elsewhere in officer's judgment the extension if any of the development beyond the red line boundary would be de minimus and in any event into an area within the same ownership as the site even if the development could be said to extend beyond the red line boundary it would not be appropriate or proportionate nor under public interest to require plan application to extend the red line in those circumstances I'll just run through the rest of slides some reason it wouldn't change just bear with me so as you can see in front see it's proposed drainage layouts apologies is slightly blurry I've had to zoom in so you can see the attenuation tank just located here at the rear of the site this is the ditch and outfall section so again you can see the attenuation tank here and this is a section showing the discharge into brook and this is just in relation to the red line application boundary which I've just gone over so in conclusion officers recommend that the planning committee approves application to discharge conditions four and five attached to plan permission s slash 2937 slash 16 slash FL as outlined in the officer report thank you chair thank you very much for that Lewis and I see councillor Bradnham you have a question for clarification thank you chairman yes I do thank you very much to Mr Tomlinson for that helpful and clear explanation of the situation just wanted one clarification and it is to do with condition five the surface water drainage and I quite understand that the development adjoining the water course actually has a repairing responsibility for the water course so it's perfectly reasonable that they should discharge into it I just wanted some comfort around you'll see that in condition five on page 113 where we have the recommendation the condition five includes the document titled below ground drainage operation and maintenance strategy report prepared by Andrew fire brace partnership limited and the detail of which is on page 226 and it talks about the maintenance strategy report and it talks about inspection these underground storage tanks needing to be jetted and cleaned every three months and general maintenance and cleaning of below ground systems should be done after each major storm event and on an annual basis so can we be clear that that will be part of the condition that the owners will have that responsibility to clean out those storage tanks thank you councillor Bradnam Lewis thank you for your question so that is an approved document so it's what officers put forward so if our members decide to approve the application today that'll be listed the one is approved documents which we'll have to adhere to thank you very much thank you councillor Bradnam do we have any other questions for clarification yes we do we have councillor Eileen Wilson councillor Eileen Wilson please thank you chair my question is about the surface water drainage and the water being drained into Longstanton Brook now I'd be interested to know where the the drained water from Longstanton Brook carries on beyond the boundary of this area and whether the local drainage board has been consulted on this particular application thank you councillor Wilson Lewis thank you I don't have that information in front of me but if you could bear with me I can find out during the course of this debate okay and we have a further question for clarification from councillor Henry bachelor thank you councillor Henry bachelor thank you chairman just points of clarification on the two conditions would be announced to include just a quick question on the wording it says conditions four and five will only be fully discharged once the fell water drainage system has been installed and made operational in accordance with the approved detail and kind of clarify who would be responsible for checking that would it be the applicant building control just wants a clarification on where the responsibility lies for them thank you thank you so the recommendation is to discharge conditions in full in order to achieve full compliance with the conditions they must follow the the condition wording and the approved details it's not something that we would carry outside visit to we can only be reactive in this case so it's up to the applicant to ensure that they carry out the details in full thank you and you're still looking for the the response to councillor Lyley Wilson's question I understand councillor Braden do we have any others yes we have another question from councillor Richard Williams thank you councillor Williams thank you chair can I just go back to councillor Bradenham's point about the maintenance and just get a bit of clarification if we know what the flood risk is if the maintenance isn't carried out or what the risks are around that because it is quite a complicated solution so I'd welcome a bit of clarification on on the risks around what would happen if the maintenance for whatever reason didn't happen as specified if members would just bear with me I think it'd be helpful for Simon Darche who represents DanTech to answer these questions I just need to make to get him to dial into the call so if you just allow me a few minutes just to sort that out that's that's fine so Louis I understand so that would be the sustainable drainage consultant for DanTech directly I think that's that's important to have it's the awful of the independent review that was carried out so if you'd just like to bear with me I'll just get him on the call yeah that's fine thank you chair for your patience I believe Simon Darche has joined us now we'll be able to answer those questions yeah hi can you hear me all so I think the first question was where does the water go now the tributary that sort of sits behind Fuse Lane actually discharges into the long Stanton Brook which is an award drain under the jurisdiction of South Cunst district council from there it joins the Swayze drain system which drains down through past Swayze village into the Swayze drain where it meets Webthole and Webthole was effectively a tight lock sluice if you like it's not actually tidal but it gets locked in high flows from the River Great Ooze so in times of high flat in Great Ooze that gate will shut and Swayze drain acts as a conduit for storage so effectively it's all part of the Long Stanton Brook and Swayze drain system thank you very much and Simon Darche sustainable drainage consultant from Stantec how's Lyleen Wilson does that answer your question I just have a further question if I may chair yes um over Christmas we saw some heavy surface water flooding in the area of Cottenham and around and about and I just wonder how the surface water draining of this particular development would have been affected by that heavy rainfall and the the heavy surface water um almost well flooding actual flooding would have fed in um under those conditions that very heavy rainfall that we experienced on Christmas Eve and over Christmas thank you yeah I'm not I'm not aware of any problems at the site and the site uh does sit on slightly higher land in the village um but yeah the rainfall that you saw particularly I think it was on Christmas Eve and Christmas day there was about 40 million of rain recorded locally in the area so it was a fairly intense storm but that wouldn't have naturally impacted that site um you know the site isn't at flood risk it sits out the flood envelope um but yes the system itself probably would have seen some local ice flooding thank you very much and so the answer to the other question so there was Councillor Henry Batchelor's question about um uh who will check whether things have been so that was answered by by the officer I think on that one so I think it was Councillor Richard Williams Dr Richard Williams which was you know what's the risk um if the maintenance strategy which has um you know been detailed and shows that there's quite intensive cleaning and takes place regularly and periodically and so but the sort of the concern is one that would be part of the condition that's been clarified and confirmed in this meeting but two just to understand the risk if that didn't happen yeah in in in terms of the local system and within the property itself yeah uh those risks always occur with a domestic property um and on the the scale of a domestic property actually the the the risk uh the greatest risk is probably to the property itself uh so if the property owner wasn't maintaining that system the biggest risk is that that system would back up and probably flood day garden now that's got the potential to to have sort of knock on effects downstream but in the quantities that we're talking it's actually negligible um so the biggest risk is probably to the property itself uh so it's in the property owner's best interest to maintain that system the soils are permeable um so actually the impact again is slightly mitigated by the fact that water will infiltrate into the ground um what what we've advised is that actually they push those soakaways away from the building just to protect the building but actually if that water were to encroach it and sit in the garden it would eventually soak in um but it it's of such a small scale that it wouldn't be a major impact on the system downstream it's more of a localized issue and probably to the property itself thank you very much um Katzoo Eileen Wilson you have got a further question um and is this for the case officer um I'm not sure which of them will be able to answer it but um it is it is part of my earlier question whether the local um internal drainage boards were consulted on this on the application about the impact potential impact on the swavesy drain thank you and I see that Lewis has requested to speak so yes Lewis you want to come in first thank you I'd just like to pick up the point about if maintenance isn't kept up so with most conditions there is an onus on the applicant to ensure I've uh they carry out the details um as approved the maintenance going forward um if that's not carried out in accordance with the details it becomes an enforcement issue at a later date um I'll just double check this consultation question so if you just bear with me thank you thank you so what you're checking is the question around whether or not the IDBD um internal drainage board was correct and Councillor Bradman do we have any further clarification questions no we don't Chairman thank you sorry just bear with me the system is always slow when you're need to do something so just bear with me don't worry so I've just checked the application and they weren't consulted but it's my understanding they wouldn't be consulted on this scale of development given it's only for one dwelling at the rear of the site um the consultee includes Anglia Water um Longstants and Parish Council and the surrounding neighbouring properties thank you for that clarification thank you very much do you want to come back on that Councillor Wilson or that was a very clear answer um I just have concerns around the fact that the IDBs aren't always consulted and and I know this is a particular problem in areas where there is surface water drainage problems yeah so maybe we take that into the debate but we have the clarity you know we've had your um question clarified so thank you very much so we'll move now to we have a request to speak from Councillor Williams I'm not sure if that's in the debate or for clarification thank you very much yes Councillor Williams thank you Chairman it's clarification through yourself to the officer because what we've just heard um is about the um internal drainage board hasn't been consulted with um which obviously is going to be of concern to some of us what size of development would we normally consult on them with sort of what is the what is the threshold if I could have the information please because then it then they all um give me a sense of proportion thank you I think that's a good yeah absolutely so um Lewis if you'd like to come back on that particular question in terms of thresholds um given that you you mentioned that this was a domestic site and therefore not necessarily requiring that level of consultation with the IDB and I also see that Simon Dutch is offering to come back on that question as well so Lewis first my understanding is that it's for major applications um but I would just check with my colleagues and just make sure that it's the correct answer um in the meanwhile if Simon would like to come back thank you thank you Simon Dutch I was just going to add that um uh Stantec to uh offer advisory services to the training of the IDB um towards the IDB that is um and we are advising them on various applications within that catchment um so just to let you know that um you know if it's are the IDB's interests being looked after well yes we're not working for them but um we would have certainly taken that into account in terms of our assessment okay thank you can I I just um looks like we've got very good news and we have Councillor Deborah Roberts has been able to join us thank you that I'm so sorry that you've had those problems glad that powers back on I'm assuming Councillor Roberts so you will you'll have missed the um first presentation those which means that you know you as I'm saying you can't take part in the debate but can't vote thank you very much Chairman yes it was a washing machine now that's blown everything last week last week it was the oven I'm sure that these machines know when an electrician comes in my house okay Chairman quite understand them I won't take part in this um this particular one thank you we're just we've heard from the officer we're just finishing the clarification questions and then we'll move to public speakers but thank you for for letting us know that yeah for you chair so I've just checked and yes there'll be majors and it's also at the discretion of the council given the minimal impacts of the scheme it wasn't considered necessary in this case thank you um Councillor Heather Williams in terms of the as I understand therefore um usually major but that is at the discretion of the council and therefore on the basis of that they've made that decision do you want to come back on that Councillor Heather Williams for any further clarification uh Chairman no um maybe some advice that there should be a threshold thank you I think it's an important point that's been raised in general in specific to this application I think it's clarified that that was um the decision taken by the council on the way to proceed with this one thank you very much um public speakers we almost had a full start there so we will move to the public speaking section now and we do have an objector and that's Daniel Fulton Mr Fulton you know very well I think how this the section um works and you have three minutes now to um speak to the committee and we know that you have provided significant representation on on this issue yes thank you very much very pleased to be here uh just in response to Councillor Wilson's concerns the internal drainage board of course was not consulted and the internal drainage board's ongoing concern about the capacity of Swayva Sea drain have not been addressed in the stand tech report um as you know there's significant risk of flooding not only in long standing but downstream in Swayva Sea and this is being exacerbated by the increased outflows from the udden droves sewage treatment plant which is responsible for all of the north stow discharge um so there are serious flooding issues downstream that have not been addressed um to start my prepared remarks I'll just start with a brief quote from the local government association report that just came out quote officers reports are not properly quality assured by managers before the committee reports are issued and this has led to a large number of mistakes member frustrations and in some cases deferments unfortunately this is yet another case where an officer's report has apparently not been subject to quality assurance or even subject to review by a manager had a manager reviewed the report that manager would have realized that the officer's report misdirects the committee as to the interpretation of planning policy cc eight of the local plan 2018 policy cc eight states that quote development proposals will be required to demonstrate the service water drainage schemes comply with the sustainable drainage systems non statutory technical standards however the officer's report states that cc eight only applies to developments of 10 dwellings or more yet there is nothing in the development plan to even hint at this interpretation the officer's interpretation ignores the actual words of the policy and it instead substitutes conjectural statements that were made in the house of commons before the technical standards were even adopted or had even been consulted upon this is really a ridiculous level of misdirection and it's only one of the numerous errors of misinterpretation of policy that are littered throughout the report furthermore the consortium has also submitted this is that that this application proposes development outside the four corners of the planning permission granted by the inspector on appeal in response to this point the officer's report acknowledges in paragraph 72 that operational development would be required outside the boundaries of the application site but argues this would be de minimis however this view fails to consider the actual scope of the planning permission granted had the officer read the planning permission in question it would have been apparent that the application form has been incorporated into the planning permission by including language to that effect in the operational part of the decision granting permission had the officer read the application form he would have seen that it expressly states that there is no water course within 20 meters of the site how anyone can consider 20 meters to be de minimis is beyond me this is clearly a material consideration that has not been taken into account by the officer's report should the committee be minded to approve this application today it will need to address all of the material errors in the officer's report when it creates a statement of reasons the fuse link consortium demonstrated conclusively in July that there was no way the council can reasonably approve this application yet rather than refusing the applications as the material considerations indicated I'm almost finished I have one more paragraph Stephen Kelly decided to spend 4 000 pounds in public funds to obtain expert evidence supporting the development that expert evidence which misinterpreted the key material policy of the development plan has now been discredited when material considerations indicate we have the recommendation should be for refusal thank you thank you very much do we have any questions for clarification for Mr Fulton um Councillor Heather Williams has a question please yeah Councillor Heather Williams please thank you through yourself chairman um to Mr Fulton that I appreciate in the three minutes you're trying to crown quite a bit in but I'm just wondering if you could reread slightly slower this section of where you read from the local plan because I'm trying to find the policy but not quick enough I'm afraid um so if that's for yourself chairman if that's acceptable so that your question is um as a clarification question therefore to Mr Fulton would be what is the details of that um section being referred could could you just recite as we read that section yes I think it is the first or second bullet point of policy cc eight in the policy states quote development proposals will be required to demonstrate that surface water drainage schemes comply with the sustainable drainage systems non-statutory technical standards thank you that's helpful okay um do we have any other clarification questions for Mr Fulton I have one chairman yeah thank you through through your chair to Mr Fulton um I just wanted to check that Mr Fulton would accept that any landowner has responsibility for maintenance of a watercourse running adjoining their property up to the midpoint of that watercourse and does he accept that for that reason the outflow to the watercourse is acceptable um to answer councillor Bradnum um the operational development is any construction operations that occur in on on or under land digging a three foot deep trench into a water course where there is an established population of water goals is development um it's outside the scope of the permission and furthermore uh it's an adopted watercourse so uh south kimberchurch district council I believe is responsible for the maintenance not the riparian owner in this particular instance if that's helpful thank you that's helpful thank you anybody else would like to ask a clarification question of Mr Fulton no um thank you very much thank you very much everyone I appreciate it thank you very much Mr Fulton um as I understand we don't have um anybody speaking for the applicant who's requested to speak in this public speaking slot so we'll move on to long stand and parish council um and Libby why to you with us can you hear me a little a little yeah a little softly oh dear okay I have this issue hopefully you can hear me and I'll be very very brief can I just ask you Louie and we can really hear you well so that's perfect thank you very much you can see you everything do you have um yes authorization to speak on behalf of the parish council yes I do yep we met on Monday and you do have three minutes so just take your time I know you own a little bit safer just take your time it won't take long don't worry um I attended your committee meeting in October to express the ongoing concerns that the parish council have with the applications for fusing and um you will be aware that Longstampton parish council have recommended refusal for all applications initially in respect to highway safety and over development of the site I believe my first representation to you was in 2019 having attended the planning authorities meeting in October the application for the discharger conditions was discussed and it was agreed for by the committee to allow extra time for the parish council to review the technical report from Stantec I can confirm that there was no communication after this meeting about that and had I not been at the meeting we would have been unaware that the documentation was available and that the time had been extended for review having looked at the document on the system councillors believed it was too technical for them to understand with their limited knowledge of drainage and we requested by email in November that a summary of the document be provided to help members understand what the document was suggesting this has not been received so again Longstampton parish council do not feel they are in a position to provide a comment on this application that's it thank you very much thank you and important as anybody else would like to ask clarification questions councillor Henry bachelor you're on separate yeah thank you chair um just I think it's pretty more question for legal officer just what their response to that comment by the parish council was that they haven't been given suitable um legible documentation to read and comment on thank you um and so I put that to would that be Chris Carter or just even read that would help us with with that sorry chair just took me a moment to unmute there and the purpose of the the stand tech report is clearly a technical one to advise the council I'm sorry if the request from the parish council wasn't um actioned I'm afraid I wasn't aware of that and I don't know why that would be at this stage but given the purpose of the report is to inform the decision making of the district council and there's clearly significant information there provided by stand tech and including the officer report then um I don't think that's the reason why we shouldn't continue to consider the matter now notwithstanding my apology to the parish council for their request not being actioned we have a further request to speak from councillor councillor Heather Williams councillor Heather Williams please thank you chair and if I could just clarify my understanding is correct about what's been said um I think councillor bachelor has covered the the technical nature of that report um but that the parish council is my understanding correct that the parish council was not informed of the extension of time but found out through another means and so therefore has been able to respond and not saying that that's that's right but is that my understanding or is it a case of you haven't been able to respond sufficiently because you weren't made aware of it thank you I think what we heard was it was a mixture of kind of the two reasons but Libby would Libby White would you like to respond yes um so we knew about the document because I attended your meeting in October otherwise we wouldn't have known about the extension we did look at the document but councillors felt they were unable to comment because of the technical aspect they asked for a summary but that was never the forthcoming so they haven't felt they can comment hopefully that clears it yes no and I think that does thank you and I think you know later in the agenda we will be looking at the planning advisory service report and the improvements that we can make to the way in which the planning committee works so hopefully we will also pick this up for future occasions um going forward so that the issues about sort of advice and communications are made very very clear thank you Stephen read senior planning or your cameras come on is that because you're wanting to speak thank you chair um the um point I was going to make is that um the spam tech report is a a technical report because by the nature of the matters contained within the report they're dealing with very technical matters and uh Mr Carter has apologised that in fact the um parish weren't responded to but I think the apology should be that um the parish council should have been advised that there's a danger in trying to um turn a technical report into something which then loses the technical nature by the nature of the report it is technical and I think um there's a there is a danger trying to um convert a technical report into something which may be more readily um clocked to grips with by a lay person but so I think the apology is that we should have responded to the request to say um itself that uh it's not a suitable request that the um district can actually help with thank you um for that clarification so I think there's one sort of is picking up is how the communications around decisions of the planning committee of an extension of a consultation period is there something we need to explore second there was an apology from Chris Carter for not responding to um that request um to explain whatever its its response was um I see that there are no further clarification questions thank you very much to Libby White Clark of Longstownton parish council for that and I see that we don't have um having a request to speak of a local member and therefore committee will move to the debate um on this application and the debate being around um the the merits and the balance of the recommendation that that this be approved for the discharge of conditions for and fine do I have anybody who would like to speak chairman I would like to yeah councillor hon. Bradley thank you um my feeling is that we've um whilst this has not come straightforwardly actually we've done the district council has addressed the issues that were concerned and has obtained an independent um report on the matters of drainage and that report has assured us that they feel that the concerns that have been expressed um are are fair but in this case they feel they have those concerns have been overcome in the methodology that's been proposed um and so my feeling is that um um my feeling is that we should accept that independent advice uh and I I personally feel um we would not have good grounds for refusal on those grounds uh because the advice we have from the independent engineer is that those concerns have been addressed thank you councillor Braden and while you're then just looking at the list of speakers I see that we have councillor Nick Wright first of all and then you can continue to help me with the rest of the speakers councillor Nick Wright thank you chairman and through you um picking up some of the points um councillor Bradman is right we have that expert opinion um and so much else of what has been said principally by people objecting to the site are interpretation of various policies etc um we have to trust our officers that they are doing their job and they have recommended approval on this uh having taken technical advice um the procedures need to be followed correctly to move to a decision on this and we need to be absolutely certain from our officers that that has been done correctly um I do know a little bit about water course awarded water courses having several across my farm and to be absolutely clear on that is you know the riparian owners own the water course the council has a duty of maintenance on it to a certain size so ownership is not in the council's ownership it is in the riparian owners ownership just to clear up that point um on the IDB as a former member of the SWAVC IDB we were consulted on every application that came forward in the SWAVC IDB area and consulted also on uh applications that move through SWAVC but not necessarily individual households certainly the major ones in the past and I presume that is operating on the same same uh basis as it always has done um so much of this application depends on the technical advice and you know when you're requesting a um a detailed report on that for goodness sake let's have an executive summary to it that people like parish councils can understand in the interests of transparency and everything else there's no reason why this should be you know hidden from parish councils or objectors or anything else like that in future so you know it's difficult you know with that technical advice you know and the officers advice you know that to find reasons for refusing this if the processes have been followed correctly thank you chairman thank you very much kassana bradnam do we have other speakers uh yes chairman we have councillor heather williams good and and while we're doing that given um councillor nick great sort of concern and question if chris carter and the case officer could be ready for to come back and you know reassure us in terms of procedure as as for our decision making in that but apologies councillor heather williams thank you go ahead thank you chairman um I have to say I I sympathize with long-standing parish council because I am struggling with this one I'm not going to pretend you know I'm an accountant I'm not a drainage specialist and and that's actually the point of us as a as a planning committee is is that we're not professional planners we're we're democratically elected um I'm saying that that that does require that does require the the reports or summaries to be accessible to us as well um and I have struggled with this this um document and reread it I think five times now um and I'm very very conflicted because I can see that how the policy this the eight I've subsequently been inflicted our local plan how that could be interpreted as um as the objectives have um and I can see we've got technical expert advice telling us from both offices and stand tech that this is okay and um and it it leads to and I have to be honest an internal conflict that I'm wrestling with um um and right now can't say can't say how I'm minded because it's um very difficult thank you councillor the Williams councillor Bradman uh councillor Martin Kahn chairman thank you councillor Martin Kahn I've tried to look at this from a very simple straightforward point of view because we've been blinded by by uh technical detail uh the policy the aim is to try and not exceed the uh normal discharge uh natural plot off from that site uh we're told that the uh system would do it but what if the worst situation the whole system was clogged up and the whole of the uh water went into the stream I was looking at its pulse perhaps 100 square meters of of um hard standing uh that and there's a massive storm you might get five cubic meters it it's it's not of itself going to flood adjoining areas or be detectable um it's the whole point of these uh this restriction is basically to prevent a cumulative um impact upon the stream and of itself I don't see the fact that it might not be maintained to be sufficient reason for refusal so I can we're told that it would work um we have to take uh respect expert advice that we've been given I cannot see any particular reason for refusal for this proposal thank you uh chairman the next person wishing to speak is councillor Henry bachelor councillor bachelor thank you chairman um again I'm pretty going to echo what other people have said but uh I mean I think if the planning officer is satisfied and we have contracted a company to give us some expert legal advice which I think was pointed out was didn't come cheaply um I don't think that we as a committee are in a position to second guess that expert advice so unless I hear anything between now and the vote I will be voting in favour chairman thank you thank you very much councillor Peter feign next chairman councillor Peter feign thank you chairman the question before us is actually quite straightforward this planning consent was granted on appeal over two years ago now the question is whether conditions four and five are now met that's a technical issue on which we've had not any technical advice but also a very helpful explanation from the drainage consultant who wrote that um some have wondered why there was no summary well I read this report not as a severe informer drainage consultant but just as an ordinary member of the committee as is my job and I was confused by one or two places that's not surprising this is a technical report but the conclusions are very clear on page 144 it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that the scheme can provide a viable drainage strategy that will not increase flood risk elsewhere it concludes that the application would accord with policy cc7 with cc8 and with cc9 we therefore recommend the discharge to conditions four and five for the site I can find no technical or other reason for rejecting that advice or indeed the advice of officers who I am satisfied read the application and all the other details and therefore I come to the conclusion that it is time now for us to approve this application thank you and Councillor Braden and do what I'd like I'm hearing um that we have some people who are still listening very carefully um but we also have heard quite a few now who feel that on on this basis you know there has been the the technical expertise sought which was the reason for the deferral and it's come back to us and they are looking to be minded to follow that guidance and advice I see that we do have two other speakers if you have anything additional to add um but if it's just a confirmation of that then um please you know let's respect this and we could move to a vote but however if you do have additional comments to make on this or that would help us come to a balance in terms of our reasoning around um this application then please go ahead so the next speaker is Councillor Eileen Wilson chairman I have nothing different to add thank you very much and Councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins chairman I'll be quite quick chair thank you very much uh just to come um give a perhaps a numeric point in paragraph 4.3.31 on page 142 uh effectively what we're saying is the discharge from uh you know into the water course will only take a capacity of and as in the worst case scenario right less than what 0.05 percent of the capacity of that ditch which is why it said it's negligible which means there is no reason why we cannot approve this so I will be voting for approval of the discharge of this condition which is something that you know the technical report has uh recommended that we do thank you thank you and I understand that we've also has been debated which is the accumulative impact not just the impact of this particular one but that the review looked at accumulative impact uh Lewis I see you are requesting to speak as the case officer thank you chair so for you um apologies that the parish council request wasn't uh responded to but I can confirm the consultation was sent out um acknowledging that it wasn't sent out until December so there was a delay between the October planning committee date and the consultation being sent um this stand tech report is a technical document it has been summarized by officers in the committee report um to ensure that members are informed and I'd just like to reiterate that the application has been assessed against policy cc slash eight as per the officer report thank you chair thank you and just to come back on your point there Lewis so when you say that you know it wasn't communicated immediately after the committee meeting I mean your earlier comments you said that on the 10th of December was when the further consultation started so what you're just confirming is at that point that was when the parish council was and did receive the communication it was sent correct it was a delay and yeah it was due to my workload that I didn't get round to send it out the consultation so it was a delay between the actual committee date in October and the consultation being sent out in December right but but at the time of the consultation so correct thank you and I think it's really important to to hear here that the apologies that have been sent to the parish council in the way that's done um and I think also unless Chris you want to come back in terms of procedure the issue that council and Nick Wright brought up in terms of our procedure around decision making in this we can move to a vote Chris would you want to say anything on that to reassure members further thank you chair I don't think it's anything additional for me to uh to add um but I think um Lewis has covered the issue about the the timeliness of the re-consultation but obviously that the re-consultation did happen so thank you thank you and if any members are um minded to reject this decision to go forward with the to approve the discharge of conditions four and five would you like to let us know what would be the grounds for that please in terms of the material considerations for that I have heard things which are about process and procedure yeah and but I haven't heard anything which is sort of technically or that provides a material consideration for why we wouldn't be accepting that technical advice is that right Chris yes sorry through you chair um no I think uh given uh what the conditions require we would need to have a technical reason related to the requirements of those conditions in order to substantiate a refusal and I haven't heard anything to that effect does anybody do you want to speak to that if they were minded to um refuse Councillor Bradenham do we have anybody um I know I can't see anybody and I just wanted to to assist you the recommendation is that at paragraph 75 on page 113 I've also got it on page 96 at four is that there's a difference is that no the same so yes so what we are voting on members is the officer recommendation that planning committee approve um this application to discharge conditions four and five attached to planning permission s 2937 stroke 16 stroke fl um and we have the details of that in terms of the conditions that on page 113 um can we approve this Stephen Reed sorry senior planning lawyer legal advice before I go Stephen um can I just highlight paragraph 438 on page 137 page 137 paragraph 438 at the bottom of the page oh yes this relates to the number of dwellings this relates to the number of dwellings we've heard from um Mr Fulton this morning that uh uh he says well my interpretation of what he says was that what's contained in 438 is not legally correct but uh I would invite members just to consider why if that is his contention he didn't raise the point during the period of consultation when he could have highlighted it rather than to bring it up this morning um thank you Stephen I'm going to go ahead with the vote members um can we take this by affirmation I think no until we go through a call because I have heard I think it's certainly quite significant we're not sure exactly where everybody's minded to vote so I will go to a roll call then so starting um here Stephen if you could take your camera off please and lower your hand thank you very much Councillor Deborah Roberts yes absolutely we understand that because you missed the the debate and the well the presentation at the beginning that you won't be voting on this item but we're very happy to have you back in the meeting so I'll start with the rolling just before you proceed Councillor Heather Williams has asked to speak thank you Councillor Heather Williams thank you chair I I thought because of the um comic made by Mr Reed that we maybe needed to discuss that point um and I was only going to speak today that I think it'd be inappropriate for us to challenge as and when people raise their their comments we give people an opportunity to speak at these meetings the fact that they've not given us advance warning is not something that I think is appropriate for us to challenge that that was all chairman thank you noted thank you um I will now go to the roll call on the vote and the vote is around the recommendation I've just read out which is to approve the application for the discharge of conditions four and five councillor Henry bachelor in favor chair councillor Anna Bradnam four chairman councillor Martin Kahn four councillor Peter Fane four councillor Dr Toomey Hawkins four councillor Heather Williams like to abstain chairman councillor Dr Richard Williams or councillor Eileen Wilson four councillor Nick Wright four and myself councillor Pippa Halings that's four in my count we have nine votes four and one abstention and one member who is unable to vote because they missed the first part of the presentation of this application therefore the decision is to vote is to approve this application for the discharge of conditions four and five thank you everybody chairman did you want to take a pause before the next um yes thank you we've had a short break different smiling Wilson are we okay with you unless anybody else would like to do we continue with the next application and we would be then nearing um we then may be nearing the four hours when we would take a longer break anyway I'm fine thank you oh okay thank you everybody we are now um looking at agenda item eight which is on page 243 members and this is around the application 20 stroke 02453 stroke s 73 the retreat Puse lanes Long Stanton um and this is around the variation of condition seven the traffic management plan pursuant to planning position permission s stroke 0277 stroke 19 fl to reflect the proposals in the traffic management plan to substitute the current wording in condition seven with the development hereby committed should be carried out in accordance with the traffic management plan prepared by SLR consulting version final one and dated December 2019 which is resubmitted the applicant is mr jerry kadoo of landbrook homes limited the key material considerations for us members highway safety including the safety of all users of the adopted and unadopted highways in the vicinity of the site no site visit it's not a departure um and the decision is due by 16th of july 2020 this has been brought to committee um because it was referred as a result of request by the parish council and because in the opinion of officers the matter should be determined by committee presenting officer is once again louis tomlinson and louis thank you do you want to um give us your presentation thank you chair i'll just share my screen could you just confirm that you can see that in front of you yes we can thank you great thank you chair so again it's the um property known as the retreat um down fuse lane long stanton this application is in relation to the front of the site so where the existing bungalow is to be demolished and replaced with two dwellings um under planning permission s slash zero two seven seven slash one nine slash f l parking for these two two new houses will take place from the site frontage onto fuse lane and a further single-story dwelling is permitted to be erected in the former garden area as um subject to the previous application um fuse lane is not an adopted highway and comprises of a single vehicle width gravel service track the lane currently serves an access to a double garage serving the hundred five hundred and thirty five high streets to three other dwellings the willows and the two recently constructed dwellings as well as the development plots at the retreat the lane varies in width and the half service track runs alongside a treed and vegetated area to the north with boundaries to number hundred and thirty five high street and the willows to the south side um a footpath public right away linking home farm residential development to the south and west of fuse lane with high street emerges on the south side of fuse lane at a point to the immediate west of the willows and before the existing informal turning area beyond site lives within the designated village framework and is otherwise unconstrained so I will just run through so as you can see again uh high street here um fuse lane access in the retreat so this is an aerial site view so just to be clear this application relates to this part of the site which is for the erection of two dwellings um the double garage for a four hundred and thirty five high street it's just here and this is the willows these are the recently constructed dwellings you've got a public right away which runs along here and down here just run through the approved plans so this is the approved site plan it's on here you can see again fuse lane the two uh dwellings which is the subject of this permission the bungalow as discussed previously and two recently constructed dwellings you've also got the willows here and then the double garage here these are the approved elevations for the dwellings this is the approved floor plans and section and this is the approved street elevation I'll just run through a number of photos just to make members aware of the site so this is a view up fuse lane from the access of high street I've got a number 135 high street on the left here you can just see their garage just there this is a view along high street past frontage of fuse lane look north and got fuse lane on the left and please note the traffic calming just here there's a view along high street past the frontage of fuse lane look in south of fuse lane on the right view along high street past frontage of fuse lane look in south of fuse lane on the right taken from the entrance to Mitchcroft road fuse lane entrance is just here you've got the traffic calming here um this is a photo taken from the fuse lane entrance looking towards the north and this is a photo again taken from the fuse lane entrance looking towards the south and this is another photo looking down fuse lane to further into fuse lane with the garage to 135 high street just here and the willows just here on the left again another photo looking down fuse lane as you can see the retreats and the existing bungalows just on the right here the recently constructed dwellings just in the foreground this is the informal turning head opposite the retreat and this is a photo showing the access on to fuse lane from the public right away to home farm so the proposal in front of you today is an application that solely seeks to consent for the variation of condition seven which is in relation to a traffic management plan of plan permission s slash zero two seven seven slash one nine slash f l to amend the wording of the condition from a pre-commencement submission to a compliance for the approval of a detailed traffic management plan so the current wording of condition seven is in front of you please note one of the key parts of this condition was part two can contractor parking shall be within the cartridge of the site and not on the streets the application seeks to amend the wording of condition seven to the text in front of you development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the traffic management plan prepared by slr consulting version final one and dated december 2019 so the reason why this is in front of you today so the applicant claims that submitted traffic management plan is informed by lessons learned during the construction in 2018 to two existing new homes on the site the traffic management plan traffic management plan includes details of the arrangements for the delivery of materials turning movements enclosure of the site and contractor parking during the construction phase as well as detailing areas for material storage keeping site and area clear and the site office site circumstances in this case notably the size of the development plots itself however mean that the space for parking within the site is limited accordingly the traffic management plan refers to revision for contractor parking at digital park and station road on stanton noting that fuse lane itself is is of inadequate width to accommodate parking adjacent to the site the plan also proposes arrangements for addressing condition 15 control of hours in respect of vehicles arriving early the revision of offsite contractor parking is meant however the terms of part two of the original planning condition above cannot be met and is this departure from the original condition that's prone to this application third party representations and parish council comments highlight a number of concerns around the access and movements of vehicles into and the long fuse lane in so far as the traffic management plan can address these issues when the application site is of this size officers are satisfied with the highway authority conclusions that the measures outlined in the traffic management plan are appropriate and reasonable for larger vehicle movements where the turn area is insufficient because of the size of the site itself officers have noted that the traffic management plan proposed that vehicles would reverse into the site with the assistance of a bank'sman to maintain safety in long fuse lane during these maneuvers the parish council and third parties have expressed concern about this approach but officers considered to be a few practical or safer alternatives to this approach for development of the scale where the number of large vehicles movements would be limited the traffic management plan commits to keep clear access to the existing homes along fuse lane throughout the construction phase and to maintain the right of way clear of obstructions for pedestrians vehicle speeds along fuse lane itself or in officers view likely to be a low likely to be low five mile per hour limit is proposed within the traffic management plan and would be subject to normal care and consideration the risk to pedestrians and vehicles drivers using an entry and leaving fuse lane is accordingly considered to be satisfactorily addressed by the traffic management plan at the access point into fuse lane into this into visibility between vehicles or pedestrians on the high street and fuse lane note an existing footway width along high street and position of hedges and boundaries has been judged to be appropriate the highway authority has assessed the submitted traffic management plan and considers it to be acceptable and supports proposed variation to wording of condition seven so there are two update points that I'd just like to bring to members' attention so the first one is officers can advise members that as a fresh permission will be issued since s slash zero two seven seven slash one nine slash f l was approved there's been no material change of policy or other circumstances which might require reassessment of other conditions or indeed a reassessment of development as a whole whilst paragraph 21 of the officer reports covers a reassessment of conditions officers should add that they are satisfied that no wider reconsideration of the principal development is called for or justified and the second update point is haven't had further recent discussions with the highway authority the council maintains a position that as the local planning authority has lawful authority to entertain this application pursuant to section three two seven eight of the nineteen ninety acts and article seven of the dmpo 2015 there is no flaw in the red line as submitted when the application when the application on the reference s slash zero two seven seven slash one nine f l was approved which appears to be the route or third party concerns the issues is understood to concern with visibility displays at the end of fuse lane were required to be included in the red line plan of the original application the council's legal advice including from external council who has reviewed has reviewed all the correspondence is clear that they did not and that in any event any event that the issue is not directly raised by consideration of this application and is too late to challenge the original permission the highway authority remains satisfied that the adequate displays exist and as they're on highway land will continue to do so the issue of lawful authority cannot be resolved conclusively today there is no case law that supports the third party position on this matter and council's advice is clear in these circumstances it is open to diffuse lane consultorium to test the point by issuing judicial review proceedings if the application before you today is approved if they wish but its officer's advice that notwithstanding the extensive correspondence there is no underlying legal flaw so to conclude the officer recommendation is approval subject to the conditions imposed on the planning permission s slash zero two seven seven slash one nine slash f l and the revised one of condition seven as proposed within the section sent to application thank you chair thank you very much for this and from the chair I just like to say how much we appreciate having that level of detail and clarity in terms of looking at the debate that we will be having and the questions that may come in so helping us to understand that particularly around the legal aspects of this councillor braddenham do we have any clarification questions for the case officer yes we have one from councillor Robert's and one from me and one from councillor Richard Williams thank you councillor Roberts yeah thank you very much chairman and hopefully my electricity will bear with me for this part two of this exercise um yeah I mean it's a huge tone that we've been all trying to get our heads around and um I shall be asking few lanes consultium something to do with page 260 if it would like to get that in mind but for the officer I would and I don't really think it's a question for Mr Tomlinson I think it's a question for the legal department in that the bottom line there said there is um no case law now that doesn't necessarily in my mind say that um there is not a case is that presently nobody's bought brought these sort of matters to the high court for judgments I don't know whether that's correct or not but that's how I read it and I have to say um especially in regards to Fuselain I'm sure that we've thought ourselves quite clever in the past where legal advice has been um argued in our side which has proven to be wrong in the high courts in London so I would like some clarity on just what this um last sentence about there is no case law whether that actually means that um there's no way that it will go to and be proven against us thank you chairman thank you very much Casper Edwards and I think in the presentation the case officer did say that um it is as you've said and therefore obviously the applicant um the objector you know can take this and test it um in the courts it's not saying that it wouldn't would or wouldn't win and I appreciate that um that you've reminded of of again of of what we were told there but that even seems to me even clearer that I'm not sure if that last sentence should have actually been put in because I think it's trying to well I won't say it's trying to but it it has the ability to to mislead members into thinking well there's no case law um it therefore we're we're quite happy and okay to go ahead with it I just personally think that that line should never have been put in and should be disregarded thank you in terms of clarification um I don't know Lewis's case officer whether you want to come back and to just clarify anything there or Stephen you put your camera on for you yep um senior planning uh lawyer for planning thank thank you chair uh thank you council roberts the the the the wording was included uh having been endorsed by uh queen's council and having uh had that endorsement by queen's council I think it was it was appropriate that it that it should have been included uh you're absolutely right we're not saying that because there is currently no case law on point that it doesn't mean that there won't be case law in the future um but uh members might wish to consider the uh the following which is um there are a lot of planning applications up and down the country where local residents are vehemently opposed to the application granting permission um those residents are supported by uh some very clever lawyers and to date uh no objection on the red line point has been taken we're not saying it can't be taken but don't you think that if you had a development of hundreds of houses and you had a sound basis on which to object that in fact somebody wouldn't have already done so to date so we're not saying it can't be done but what we are saying is that we are advised that we do not think the court will support what would in effect bring the planning system up and down the country to an immediate halt because there are so many planning applications where the red line does not extend to cover visibility displays within the highway and and that's the nub of the issue yes but we we can't ignore that somebody um is actually saying to us that that is a point of law that they could and maybe will be prepared to argue no thank you thank you I think I think that's very very clear and thank you Councillor Roberts for coming back thank you um Steven for that and I think it's you know we often wonder you know what's the implications what's the likelihood what's the viability I think what's been put forward to clear is um you know that we have to take into consideration but we will be looking at the merits of this um and we just do know that it could be open to a judicial review if that's what the objector considers to do and I think that all that the the case offer has just done has given us an outlie of the land but of course as Councillor Roberts says that you know and as the case officer said it's quite within the the rights of the objector to take this further if if we were minded to reject this application um which we haven't done so far we haven't gone to the debate was still on the clarification so are there any other questions for clarification yes there's my own please chairman um and and come and Steven can you yes take your camera off um so chairman through you um this is a question for the case officer Mr Tomlinson I just wanted to clarify firstly I have no um objection on the matter of uh visibility displays I think we've had satisfaction that the what is uh proposed is reasonable but my concern lies around the original question which was um if I take us down to the bottom of page 248 paragraph 17 it talks about the fact that this is the the change is being requested and I wanted clarification from Mr Tomlinson on this point am I right in understanding that the the change in this condition has been requested because they don't feel they can park the contractor lorries on the site first question and so their solution then isn't to say where they might put them they then go on to say and it also is still uh discussed on pages 250 and 251 so they then go on to talk about the fact that instead under the transport management plan the lorries will back down fused lane with the aid of a banksman and the fact that they they feel this is reasonable because people will by the very nature of the lane be going extremely slowly five miles an hour so it wouldn't put anybody any pedestrians at risk and um they will maintain access but the question remains are the lorry where will the lorries rest because if there's one lorry in on down the lane where will it stop if it can't go onto the site where will it stop so it's the fact that the original request was to remove the requirement that the contractor lorries should park on site and replace it with this oh instead they're back down the lane I just wondered if Mr Tomlinson could just explain if I haven't understood it correctly is that what's happening just simply a replacement of one with the other this might be a good opportunity for you chair to introduce Dr John Finney from the local highway authority um John are you with us would you be able to answer some of these more technical questions I am can you hear me and see me thank you John if you just want to um yes introduce yourself you are um from the highways and the transport assessment officer is that right I'm Dr John Finney I'm principal development management engineer for the count account sort of as highway authority thank you um three huge care the the question isn't the interpretation isn't quite right the contractor parking refers to parking of vehicles owned by the contractors on site so the tradesmen etc electrician plumbers people like that general ground workers there's insufficient space on the site to accommodate the likely level of tradesmen parking so the developer has suggested quite reasonably in my opinion that they will gain parking at digital park and then use a mini bus to bring those um operatives into the site so it relates to the contractor parking the reversing of the vehicles down fees late used for specific vehicles which need things like roof trusses obviously you can appreciate they're quite large you can't have those broken down and delivered by small vehicles so for specific times you are quite right large vehicles will reverse down huge lane guided by a signaler rather than a banksman because it's non-gender specific so that they will then obviously be maneuvering within a reasonably safe fashion so anybody approaching the vehicle can be guided by the signal or the vehicle can be stopped while the person passes is that satisfactory that's really helpful thank you mr finney no problem thank you very much and i see that councillor richard williams has um yes so withdrawn his request to speak because it was around the same question so thank you for that how do we have any other clarification questions for the case officer none none at the moment chairman thank you thank you so we'll move now to the public speaking section um of the meeting and mr falton welcome back hello again hello again anyway i just want to thank the committee for your very thorough consideration of these two applications today um i think i anyway it's been a very edifying discussion and i just appreciate all of the work you've all put in tremendously so thank you um just a couple points the first point i was you're going to start your three minutes now yes so the first point i was going to raise is that under article 15 of the development management procedure order england in 2015 quote an application for planning permission must be publicized by the local planning authority uh if it affects a right of way to which part three of the wildlife and countryside act 1981 applies this includes publishing a notice to that effect in a newspaper now an article 13 notice was published for this application but an article 13 notice is a notice to landowners published by the applicant of development affecting particular land an article 15 notice is a notice that identifies the land uh being developed as land uh that contains or is related to a public right of way um this notice has never been published in a newspaper or on the council's website and there is a clear statutory requirement that this takes place i don't know why this wasn't done but it hasn't it hasn't been done and it was the council's responsibility to do so um why is this important potentially because i know that a lot of campaign groups who campaign our right of way issues specifically look at article 15 notices and there hasn't been one in this case even though it's required by law um i'll just very very briefly go through the key points first of all uh in regards to case law our case is based on um statutory law the development management procedure england order says that the instructions in the application form are to be followed that's the law the instructions in the application form says that land to be visibility space is to be within the application site within the red line the council has gotten legal advice that's very creative um but we disagree with it and i would also point out that the council's legal advice their uh interpretation of the statute is not based on any known principles of statutory interpretation um our interpretation of the statute is based on case law which the council's is not i realize these are legal points but i just want to clarify that since councillor roberts mentioned it um i think the key point is something that councillor richard williams hit on in the first application today at borne which is when can the local authority attach planning conditions um pertaining to land that is not within the application site and is not within the control of the applicant when is land that was within the application site is the ownership of land regardless of whether or not it's land to which the application relates material to making planning determinations i'll just say that one more time is the identity of the owner of land material in making planning determinations um i'll be happy to answer any questions but i think i'll stop there thank you very much thank you very much do we have any clarification questions for mr falton um chairman we have um a question all i was going to say was do we need to get a response on that first well it may be that one of the the people who are asking the clarification question ask that so go so so councillor debba roberts sorry councillor debba roberts thank you very much chairman good afternoon mr falton um i was sorry i couldn't join in the first but electricity got in the way or didn't get in the way um i did say uh that i would be referring to page two six out two six nought um on the agenda uh which is um a uh correspondence that yourselves put into south cams um with lots of bullet points um i i did enjoy your uh description of the uh legal representation that looked for from outside council hope that was quite sweet and interesting um and i would say first of all um you saw that piece about um case law which i was not happy to see actually put there so what what would your feelings be about case law and with regard to page two six nought um paragraph 10 and paragraph 12 so paragraph 10 which is about the question of the visibility displays and whether that is um a requirement a proper requirement and and do you feel therefore that particular paragraph still holds sway and at paragraph 12 um the information and i'm going to emphasize here that whatever you say here will not affect my decision making here but it would be interesting to me to see whether at paragraph 12 that would be um the fuse lane consortium's um still intention that uh if this was to be passed that is the way that you would be going forward so thank you very much um okay um to start going back to the case law issue um the council also has no case law to support its interpretation of the statute um the council also has no statutory law to support its interpretation of the statute um the council has no law period to support its interpretation but we have statute law and we have case law to support our interpretation of statute law we've spent three years campaigning against this development we have sought legal advice from three extremely qualified experienced public law barristers as you know i have put a lot of work into the fuse lane consortium and this is an issue that is not only of crucial importance to us but i think is going to set a precedent that is nationally important to local planning authorities across england and we are um not that this is materials to the decision but we absolutely are going to move forward with judicial review because i think it's an important point that needs to be established in case law um because it has real ramifications for the highway safety of this particular junction there's no visibility the highway's authority has there's no visibility zero um and there's no clear indication that the um council has considered the relevant material considerations uh in regards to um this issue i think that addresses everything thank you thank you very much mr falton okay thank you councillors ever roberts we chairman we have a further request for clarification from councillor heather williams thank you very much councillor heather williams this may be more along the lines of what the uh you were referring to chairman obviously my um attention is to the notice that was said um again my apologies it's really hard and i know everyone's trying to cram things in while they're speaking and um with the internet the if i could have the the reference of the notice that you said and then the response um you may need to come from officers chairman and i appreciate that so through yourself if it was chairman you could get some clarity on on that issue please and one other thing we did have a site visit i've just remembered way back where we got elected so um we may we may just want to make that clear as well i i recall it well so i just the notice i mentioned is a notice under article 15 of the town and country planning development management procedure order england 2015 which is commonly referred to as the development management procedure order not that that's much shorter um and this is required for development that affects a public footpath i know councillor williams will remember the application at church at darrington this is one of the notices that needed to be published there it's specifically in regards to the public footpath and it alerts all users of the public footpath in the newspaper that the development will affect their public right of way thank you and so yes on on that point if we could therefore go to um either louis or to legal advice on whether or not that article 15 um notice was considered um as necessary and was implemented chris i see that you're before your camera sorry chair yes thank you through you just to say toby williams the team leader has just been looking to this point and you may wish to invite him to address this point please thank you hello toby welcome and if you'd like to introduce yourself hi afternoon everyone uh my name's toby williams and i'm the area development manager for this part of the district i have a had a look at um article 15 that mr falton um has referred to article 15 um relates in the first instance to an application for planning commission this is actually an application for a variation of a planning uh condition so i think the first point is actually whether or not this this um particular paragraph 15 is engaged i think my view is that it is not um engaged as you read it on the face um in any event if it were to be engaged i would read this article as whether or not a development in terms of it affecting a public right of way in terms of the alignment of that public away it's it's realignment of it or it's stopping up etc and this is not this proposal is not affecting that right of way in terms of its route um at all it is seeking um effectively to utilize fuse lane as anyone would do along with use lane if the commission were granted um for access for delivery vehicles etc so i don't think that um article 15 is engaged and even if it were um my interpretation is the public right of way in the in the in the sense of how its phrased is not affected thank you chair thank you councillor the williams would like to come back thank you if i if i could just come back on that to to make sure that you know i've got full clarity and and give me chairs maybe more appropriate for toby than for mr falton um but my recollection from before it the case that got referenced in ourington was that it was going to be no change the right way went through someone's garden it was going to have no impact in that respect other than the the change of use of the land to garden use um so that hasn't even lesser impact than what's being proposed here and yet we did we did do that that order so i am struggling with that explanation um that's that's been given in any offices or whoever can can really do something else because i appreciate it might not have had a material impact but if it's part of the process that we should have done then then that and given that we are facing um i have no that's one thing i am certain today we'll we'll face some sort of challenge either way on this application whatever the outcome um i would really like some some reassurance around process here thank you chairman thank you and perhaps if you could clarify i think what kind of things up there so one is whether it's sort of change of use around this or this is um if i'm trying to understand as well we're looking at temporary construction um discharge of condition around this one does that make a difference or or not toby can you help with that yeah i mean i would just reiterate that i i i really do not think that this is a process that is in is engaged through this particular uh so just for we all understand process you mean so you know actually taking an implementing article 15 notice is that what you mean by process yeah yeah so if you if you read if you read the article 15 says um to start off with an application for planning commission must be published publicized by the local planning authority to which the application is made in the manner prescribed by this article so that the first point chair is that this is not an application for planning permission it is an application to vary um a a condition and there is um i think there is a distinction there and the second point is whether or not it would affect that right of way the proposal is not in any event uh proposing to affect that right of way in any permanent manner um as i understand it and the council would not ordinarily as a matter of process if there were temporary impacts searches through construction think that this article were we're engaged at all uh chair and that's my interpretation of that particular part of the management procedure order um as i see it thank you thank you castle as you want to come back thank you i i do appreciate that um i'm just wondering chairman if if you will permit five minutes if toky was able to send the link around because as he says if we read it for ourselves it's not something we've got to offer fingertips i i very much would appreciate having five minutes to just read the article myself if that was possible um in the interest of everybody i think we'll ask chris cut about that but we could um it could be on the screen rather than round also happy with both of those options chairman i would just like a an opportunity to view it yes chair through you i'd suggest toby you're able to share the screen with that i am able to share my screen there with me can you zoom in a little bit for us yeah and and could he unhighlight it because it makes it slightly harder to read i'll perhaps that's it and and if you could just read it out for us toby that would be really helpful yeah publicity for applications for planning commission an application for planning commission must be publicized by the local planning authority to which the application is made in the manner prescribed by this article in the case of an application for planning commission for development which a is an eia application accompanied by an environmental statement b does not accord with the provisions of the development plan enforcing the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated or t would affect the right of way to which part three of the wildlife and countryside act 1981 public rights of way one applies the application must be publicized in the manner specified in paragraph three then paragraph three goes on to state an application falling within paragraph two paragraph two application must be publicized in accordance with the requirements in paragraph seven and by giving requisite notice by site display in at least one place on or near the land to which the application relates for not less than 21 days and by in b by publication of the notice in the newspaper circulating in the locality in which the land to which the application relates is situated thank you um for that toby do you want me to stop sharing my screen chair yes thank you very much so members on that we've heard that the um we've heard from toby rooms who is the development manager for this area has given his interpretation of that challenge by by mr falton um steven reed do we want to hear anything else from you in terms of you know as committee we are guided by um our officers and by our legal counsel on these issues would you like to say anything additional or just support um thank thank you chair i would endorse the comments made by toby williams that this is not an application for a planning permission if the point was to have been taken it should have been taken when the planning permission was originally granted and the advice we received we have received is that um fuselain are now out of time to challenge the original permission in in relation to the points that they've sought to argue we're dealing with a section 73 application and we need to focus on that application so the the legal advice is very clear if um mr falton wishes to break case law he may have to do so in relation to an application for a future planning permission where he can take points as to the red line where he can take points as to even i don't think we we're not asking for you to provide us with reassurance as members of the committee because we're not you know we're not sort of legal experts in this so we are hearing from both you as our legal um advice and from the officer as well that you're giving us reassurance from your interpretation um of of policy and of these articles that what has been done in not engaging with article 15 um is fine you're giving us that reassurance i don't think you need to give advice to mr falton so sorry if we're fine there do we have the members that's as much as we can have which is we are hearing from at this point in time this is what our our officers are saying to us do we have any further clarification questions so the advice chair is that the any application for judicial review of the original planning commission is out of time i understood that thank you thank you steven okay so chairman yes um there's myself and councillor to me hawkins so the point i would like to make is um that that actually the main point is as to your camera on can't sorry yes sorry i do apologize that the main point is as um toby williams mentioned that as my my understanding um in the small way of being a footpath officer for my village is that section 15 relates to diversion or an establishment of a new route because the old route has become onerous or difficult or problematic for some reason or a stopping up of a route it does not cancel it but we're still better we're still in the clarification questions is yours i just wanted to clarify that not you to clarify the question to i just wanted to ask for clarification that my understanding of what toby williams is has said is that that the point that the point of law is that the section 15 relates to the stopping up or diversion of a footpath not to its occasional being occasionally being blocked by a lorry you know in the course of a construction can can we have clarification from toby williams that that is my understanding is correct toby could you chair yes councillor brabham and i i i would agree with your interpretation thank you very much toby thank you councillor dr to me hawkins uh thank you chair i think i was just going to say where are we here to discuss law are we here to discuss material planning considerations for an application to vary a condition i think we need to focus on that and if this whatever decision we make is going to be challenged it will be challenged and that is not for us to determine as is to determine this application to vary a condition thank you thank you very much and councillor martin can i see that you have requested speak but we um is that on this to mr falton or we would then move to the the next public speakers it's a clarification simply that uh i wanted to ask a lorry uh just wanted to ask of um either toby williams or that a lorry could at this moment without um would already have permission to approach the the site um as is proposed in this thing and so that the there is no actual change in what the what is allowed to do it's is only regulating how that is actually to be carried out toby through you chair yes uh that that's that's correct vehicles can travel down the access which is a public right way presently this is just seeking to manage that process to a development pro proposal um off use lane thank you and i think just as you know as councillor to me hawkins said so what we're looking at is the varying of a condition which is making specific reference to a traffic management plan you know specifically saying which of the traffic management plan that is in which it is then proposing um this way and in which the traffic that transport of the heavier items would come through a backwards motion down the lane so that's what we're that's what we are focusing on and councillor braddon do we have anybody else asking for clarification questions chair and councillor debba roberts has asked for to speak yes thank you chair and i appreciate that you've called me back in greatly appreciated can i put a very quick question to mr falton again please um i'd like to ask mr falton obviously you've heard um the officers legal i'm planning uh what they have had to say about um about the uh whether it would stand up in a court of law can i just confirm that the people that you have um taken legal advice from i presume that they have read uh what was being quoted themselves in full so the argument that has been put by officers is that that's about a planning application uh and therefore it's not appertaining to to what you're challenging your views please um i can say we were aware that officers might make such statements um and that was taken into account when we received legal advice if that's helpful thank you and what you said and sorry chairman and your experts mr falton have read that uh particular law policy in full haven't they absolutely yes thank you thank you thanks very much and thank you for your time again mr falton and we'll move on now with the other public speakers and so we do have um terms of the applicant and the agent we have patrick lanaway who is the agent patrick hello yes good afternoon chair because we can see you perfectly we can hear you as well and you understand you know very well the the procedures we've got three minutes for you i do i do and uh obviously in view of the discussion we've had to date i hope not to take up too much of that um i'm going to leave aside the legal issues because obviously they'll be rehearsed with the the officers of the council but what i do want to clarify is that um and i've started my three minutes just in case that's the purpose of the transport the traffic management plan which has been submitted and which is before you now is to provide very specific detail pursuant to the original condition which effectively set the parameters within which the traffic management plan should contain um and we've heard already through the um presentation by the planning officer the fact that it it contains very specific um requirements and proposals relating to for example the hours of traffic activity to ensure that that the importation exportation stages do not occur and during the afternoon period for an extended period taking into account obviously the the levels of activity elsewhere um it is based very much on the experience which has been gained from developing and building the properties which are already down huge lane and specifically therefore how best and how most appropriately the traffic management of this stage of the development can be managed so hence why areas have been laid out within the site for parking turning loading etc etc and only where very specifically required and as set out in the traffic management plan will it be necessary to occasionally very occasionally reverse under control as dr finney has said the um the need to bring in large scale and therefore low loaders or larger vehicles to reverse down there but as dr finney has said and as as set out in the traffic management plan they will be fully under the control of a signal um it also contains for example um a strategy and a an inspection regime to ensure that any damage caused by any part of the process is swiftly and appropriately maintained and repaired it sets out things like will wash effectively I consider that what we've put together in my SLR presented as the traffic management plan in association with the experience of the developer provides a very robust and as comprehensive as possible means of controlling parking turning deliveries both in terms of where how and when um one thing that also has um needs to be taken into account we believe is the fact that a lot of these issues were considered by the previous appeal uh in September 2018 and the findings of the inspector then have also been taken into account and the preparation of the traffic management plan was put together I'm obviously very happy to uh provide the clarification for any points that you you wish to uh to present thank you very much um Patrick for that and particularly within the time and for giving additional information which is always really important members do we have any um purification questions for mr lanoi there are no questions chairman thank you thank you very much so anyway for that and we will now move to the parish council long stand and parish council and invite Libby White again the clerk of pride council hello Libby thank you for keeping with us and be with us again um thank you chairman very quickly um with respect to the second application for fused lane i'm going to have to repeat you do have a thorough authorization yes yes area um with with respect to the variation of condition seven we'd like to reiterate long stand and parish council's concern over highway safety and it's noted by members that the plan shows that contractors will park at digital park on station road and make their way to fuse lane concern has been raised that contractors will not wish to walk the one mile from digital park and parking may be abused in the village long stand and parish council have not changed their views on the application and continue to be opposed to it however should this variation be approved the council would ask that the addition of the limited listing of streets where there is commitment that no parking will be undertaken be removed with a statement committing that parking on any roads in long stand will not happen or that the list of streets is extended to cover additional roads which could only be which could be used by the contractors under the paragraph 3.2.4 workforce parking thank you thank you very much and also for that specific and constructive recommendation if indeed this were to be minded to approve this thank you very much for any questions members chairman there's a request for clarification from Councillor Henry bachelor thank you councillor Henry bachelor thank you chairman i'm just reading the long stand and parish council's comments in the report which is point 11 i believe it's saying that the main reason for opposition was the safety aspect i.e. pedestrians and lorry sharing the same road i was going to ask lily if you thought that the inclusion of a signal person to guide the lorry down would have overcome that objection for the parish council possibly i do use that pass pretty much every day it is faded and is narrow it is only the width of a vehicle so if there is advancement that would make it a lot easier and safer for pedestrians yes thank you very much councillor brennan do we have anyone else uh yes we have councillor aileen wilson chairman thank you yes i just heard through you chair i have a question for liby white um we we've heard that the proposal is that work will be bought from the parking area by minibus to the um building site would that respond to the parish council's concerns if they use that yes um i think they've because they've also used that statement saying they won't park on the high street or mitchcroft road which nearby they've omitted other nearby streets so i think that's why they're suggesting to change the wording to either cover all the streets or just to say no parking but yes if they're going to come by minibus that would make a big difference thank you thank you for that and i'm i'm sure during the debate if members wanted to pick up um any of those recommendations that you have and liby they could make them do so um councillor brennan all right that there aren't any further clarification questions there are no further questions thank you very much um liby maybe like the clock belongs down to the parish council and we don't have any comments from a local member therefore members will move to the debate on this and remember that what we're looking at is to approve the application for the varying of condition seven specific to um the specific transport management plan um which is identified thank you do i have anybody you'd like to speak um chairman just for clarity um the recommendation is that we're looking at his own page 253 thank you very much councillor debba rovitz many thanks chairman well again it's a very complex day isn't it um and i'm really quite surprised to hear a leading councillor saying we don't need to take any notice of um legal implications here we just get on with it as a planning application we we've got serious reason to make sure that we um do not act unlawfully or break the rules uh because um to do so or should not do so risks putting us in financial and humiliating circumstances now we've been in the high court for a number of times recently where we've locked lost on every occasion because of what really appear initially to be minor breaches of not following planning law but nevertheless they've ended up uh in cases going against us and has been publicly in my opinion publicly humiliated and we can't go on this way so however tedious it may seem to some we have to make sure that we do you know cross the eyes and got the teas on whichever way around you're supposed to say that and it seems to me here that we i think councillor hella william said it one way or the other here this is going to end up in the court but i would rather end up in the probably planning appeals rather than the high court because i'm far from satisfied that um the council's advice that we took and i'm not on about our legal officers or our planning officers is actually will actually stand up in a court of law there also parts of the of this request that give me concerns um i really don't see workmen on a cold wintery day um getting parking their car and getting on a minibus and tootling with all their bags and baggage and all their toolkits down to this site a mile away you know we know what human nature is like they'll come in their cars and they'll all park at the end of the road and just walk down the lane i also think that actually that slurry backing down is um not something that i would want to see if that was a household there and it's going to inevitably cause um disputes because it will get in people's way people will be able to go up and down um to to in cars um while that's going on and we know how long these builders take you know it's not a five-minute exercise getting a load of roof trusses of lorry now i don't know whether that's a material reason to refuse this but i am concerned about just sort of these generalities in it which to me are going to cause a lot of problems maybe they can be overcome but my main concern is this legal situation and i really don't think we can um act in a manner where we know that there is a chance of it going to legal and going to the high court and us being found wanting again thank you so i will i will listen to the to the debate from my colleagues i haven't made it my mind chairman and be tweaked in between but i'm not happy good and just just to clarify so in terms of our material considerations as we've been directed in the papers it is around the safety issues the highway safety issues just to forget and we are focused on the varying of that condition in a traffic management plan which is looking at specifying to mitigate you know any of those circumstances we've been raised and we have heard from long standard parish council that it does to you know extend some of those deal with some of those things there was also a proposal or a recommendation from the parish council that could improve that as well and i'd like to sort of see if anybody would like to explore that as well within the debate i see um that Sharon you've put your camera on yes do you want to introduce yourselves to the to the committee Sharon and i see that you would like to speak perhaps in response to this thank you chair um yes so my name is Sharon brown i'm assistant director delivery um so i've obviously been working with the legal officer with respect to some of the legal issues arising from this application that have been raised um i would just confirm and reiterate that in response to the issues raised by councillor Roberts the council has taken its own external legal advice from Queen's council that is the position that we are relying on um and as you have said chair the key issues in relation to this application are the matters before the committee which is that this is a variation of a condition relating to a traffic management plan and the considerations of members needs to be on those matters thank you thank you very much for that Sharon and obviously each member will then themselves consider everything that they've heard and how how their confidence but as members we must one what's in front of us and two the advice that were being given um by both officers and our legal council councillor Braden who's next in the debate speak please sorry i was muted councillor dr teamie Hawkins chairman thank you and if we can keep this very much focused on the condition that's being varied and there's you know the specifics of that condition that's being varied um really i ask all members that that's where we focus our our attention councillor dr teamie Hawkins uh thank you very much chair um i'm sorry but i have to say this i refuse to have another councillor put words in my mouth in fairness something i did not say i think we all heard what i said and that was to focus on the material considerations okay and i will correct this we have not had many cases determined against us in court i would refer her to the reports that we took to scrutiny back in december now on the matter i think let's walk to me stop digging your hole can i can i just ask for respect what we did say at the very beginning in terms of the protocol was there is a way to respect to speak ask to speak and also that we won't talk over people because it's very very hard especially in a digital format for people to follow the the debate so councillor Hawkins if you were now focused on the specifics of the um of this condition thank you chair we have had um expert advice given to us we have had dr finney explain the situation to us um the reason for the change is because the applicant has learned from the work that he's done previously in building the the other two that are there now and what he's seeking to do is to make sure that the development does not impinge on those who are you know in the neighborhood and who are going to use the path hence this request for a variation and if we've had um uh you know if you're preparing uh something like this based on previous experience it doesn't happen again and you have the expert highways authority telling us that they are satisfied and we've had to look at this we've seen the pictures um i think for me it's difficult to say that we should refuse this the principle of development has been established it's a case of how the development is implemented and we need to take note of this and take note of the advice that we've been given and yes some have been to the site some have not but we've seen the pictures and nothing in those pictures suggests that this won't work there are concerns from the uh um parish council which i take um and that is workmen might not want to walk that way you know that longer distance but there are options to doing this and what i have found at least in my village is this if you have workmen who are parking where they shouldn't be parking as long as villagers know that and report it to the site manager the site managers do actually take action very swiftly i have had uh one site here where somebody actually was tough off the site and lost his job because he refused uh to do what was being asked in the traffic management plan so there are ways of dealing with these issues and i think um if we were to put conditions in that ensures that a um the community is able to have direct links with the site manager uh you know as a small liaison or you know however it is done through the parish council then i'm sure that there is uh opportunity for the requirements to be met monitored and enforced locally without even having to go to enforcement thank you thank you um who do we have next speaker chairman the next speaker is councillor Henry bachelor yeah councillor bachelor thank you chairman um as with the other applications today i mean i'm going to base my decision on the professional advice that we've been given we've heard from the council's planning officer the council's legal officer and external legal advice that the council have taken and also the county council highways department or who which say that this application to vary a condition is acceptable i don't think we're in a position to refuse what is in front of us today um as councillor Hawkins just said if there are breaches of the enforcement sorry if there are breaches of conditions relating to parking then i'm sure you know the people of long stand will be the first to to let the site manager and south camps planning enforcement team know that so as i said earlier i don't feel in a position to refuse this so as it stands i'll be supporting thank you chair thank you very much um everybody we've just gone past the two o'clock mark which is four hours i would like to if possible by affirmation agree that we um continue and extend this meeting once we finish this particular application we will have a break before then continue with the rest of the agenda so could i have um by affirmation your agreement that we extend the meeting agreed agree anybody who doesn't agree good thank you very much uh chairman the next speaker is councillor richard williams thank you councillor williams thank you very much chair um i should just say this that i i haven't actually been been to the site so i wasn't on the committee obviously um when this was considered before um i'm just going to say a few words about the legal issue but hopefully in a helpful way um i mean it's a really fascinating legal issue that's been raised about the relationship between applications variations uh the act and the management practice and you know i think all sites have really gone above and beyond in in getting their advice and we've got lots of fascinating documents that have been presented and as i say it really is an interesting legal issue but i think you know in my professional capacity i you know very interested in it obviously but i think it's a point where we've got evidence that reasonable people disagree um it's an unclear question as to what what the answer to this is and i don't think actually we can or should try and resolve that legal question in um in in this committee there's a genuine dispute about what the law means how these different bits of law relate to each other and i think ultimately that can only really be decided by the court um so um i'm not sure we can actually do that i have a lot of sympathy for the fuselain position um but but as i say i don't actually think there's much more that could be done to resolve that internally within this committee on the substance um i have sympathy with what the parish council has said and i do have some concerns about highway safety um i would be interested if we could explore taking those forward particularly having a guide if if um lorries are reversing up and down that lane there's a public right away on it i think there is a genuine highways safety issue there so i would be keen um to hear from the officers if we could maybe toughen it up and take take account of some of those parish council concerns so it's the substantive issue of highway safety that obviously i think we need to decide on on that i do have some concerns i'd be reassured if the parish council points could be addressed thank you and as i understand that councillor ritchie williams what we have heard is that that is within the traffic management plan is to have the signal person going and parish council did recognize that as that could be something that further mitigated what they did ask long term parish council is whether or not um it could be extended to be all streets included in the non parking or extend the list of those streets sorry if i didn't make my clear yes yes that that was my point thank you then maybe we could ask that the case officer that whether that is a possibility uh chairman i i'm the next person to request to speak yeah could we just ask for the case officer um louis are you able to thank you chair i'm free you um i just want to clarify this point so in the traffic management plan the contractor parking is dealt with on digital park and there will be a mini bus to ferry them from that to the site i believe what the parish council is referring to is the parking of delivery vehicles um not contractor parkings contracts parking is dealt with so if i would it be helpful if i shared my screen just so we were looking at the same thing it's just bear with me so i just want to refer to paragraph 3.2.4 which is workforce parking and it's this um line here that the parish council is referring to so that says that no delivery vehicles will park on the high street mitchcroft road or fused lane to maintain access way to the site and keep existing properties clear um we could amend that to include all streets within lond stanton we could include that within the proposed amended wording of condition seven could we just have some advice from dr john finney about that and whether that would be standard practice thank you john are you able to just elaborate on that can you hear me see me not i think i've stopped sharing your screen apologies yeah there we go thank is it all right can you see see me now can hear you john but not see you we didn't see you yeah i will i will no okay as long as you can hear me that's the important point i mean from the highway service perspective if um the contractors they develop is content i see no reason why they shouldn't be i see no reason why they shouldn't be a blanket ban as mr tomlinson i suggested across the streets within lond stanton it it would be enforceable because clearly the residents would see where the vehicles were going and coming from and if they breached that then that would be a matter obviously for the planning authority to enforce but i say from the highway service perspective it wouldn't be a significant issue good thank you so um what i would like to do members is that we we move um to a vote on that change to add that in terms of the traffic management plan so we can you know within if we were minded to approve to vary this condition according to that specific traffic management plan that there is a change as we've just heard to that specific clause for the delivery vehicles to be a blanket ban on all streets um chairman we would have to say with the exception of digital park that's for the construction vehicles yes we have to have somewhere for the chippies and the plasterers to park their cars so are they going to be allowed to do these digital park as well if i could chair for you so we would word in such a way so i think contractor parking is dealt with in the traffic management plan because of digital park i think the wording would want to add to the condition in line with what members would like would be notwithstanding paragraph 3.2 for in relation to delivery vehicles and then go on to say that they shouldn't park within any streets of London Stanton sorry so so forgive me i'm just trying to think practically speaking how these people who are properly doing building are we we must enable them to park somewhere if i could for you chair um this is in relation to delivery vehicles and not contractors so this would be people delivering materials to the site right sorry point taken i understand sorry sorry i misunderstood good um chris you've asked to speak chris carter ah okay sorry chair yes louis has covered that point i think we just we've got those two issues haven't we and we've got sort of the contractor vehicle and that was the backing down and it was whether or not the parking and that's delivery park and this one is specifically about delivery vehicles that are coming in um and so i think as we've got so in relation to 3.2.4 within the traffic plan notwithstanding that that they shouldn't park on any of the streets that's what you're proposing therefore louis toby i see you got your camera on are you helping us with that i'm trying to try and assist committee if i can um i i have read this plan um i do recall that there was um one particular street near north stow that was identified for these vehicles to lay up in um louis i'm not sure if you're you're able to kind of find that particular part of the plan that you could show um members but i think this has been covered by the um applicants in the plan or already from recollection recollection recollection for you child just share my screen to just show everybody this so it is within the traffic management plan toby is correct um it talks about in terms of hcp offsite parking we've identified a section of sterling road in north stow which is currently utilised by ferris companies delivering materials including ready mick well as it goes on in around north stow um um i think that's fine but i don't see any concern with adding the extra bit that members want into the condition because it really just makes sure that it's clear to everybody i'd support that did you want me to just draft what it would look like so i can show members please that would be excellent thank you very much continue with other with other um anybody who wants to make other contributions to the debate while louis is helping us to to draft what that motion would look like um chairman i think i was the last person to speak i think um if that's okay chairman through you yes thank you um my feeling is that um i'm confident having looked at the countryside planning act uh while we were talking i'm confident that the advice that toby's given us and the legal matter is dealt with that this this doesn't relate to the temporary dealings with you know movements of vehicles along fuselain um so i'm confident that we're dealing with that in an appropriate manner and i'm relieved that we've taken up the the point that the parish council made about parking and i think this solution that's been suggested is very helpful and i think that will be great and be good when um mr tomlinson has the wording um so now i am confident to approve this application thank you thank you councillor badenham um may i chair yes councillor i wonder if we could put an informative uh regarding lives in between parish councils and residents if any um breaches um are noted so that the site manager can be contacted immediately to get the matter resolved absolutely i'd endorse that as well chairman sorry chair thank you very much um first things easier for people all around within the community and obviously we will come in as enforcement if we need to but it's usually easier for the site manager to deal with these issues there and then thank you councillor hawkins so um louis if you could respond to that as well whether an informative could be added apologies i was on mute um we can add an informative yes i'll just share my screen now just to show the proposed word and so i'll just read it out so the development here by permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the traffic management plan prepared by slr consulting version final one and dated december 2019 notwithstanding the detail contained within the traffic management plan in relation to the parking of the delivery vehicles no delivery vehicles during the construction phase will park on any streets within the village of london stanton thank you very much and so i think we'll take one each each one in in turn in terms of these different proposals um and so what i would committee what i'd like to do is i would like to propose that as a motion that we accept this to be included within the recommendations for approval do i have a seconder yes chairman i'll second that that's councillor bradnan thank you um knowing obviously that we haven't yet gone to we're not yet at the vote whether or not we are going to um accept and approve the officer recommendation for the varying of the condition this is about what we're voting on if we when we get to that point so this is about a motion to include the wording on the screen within the recommendation as part of the conditions seconded by councillor bradnan um can i take that by affirmation or shall i do a roll call i agree actually i think because we have got some people have registered concerns about everything i'm going to do a roll call i've just realised in terms of this just the the legal proceedings of the whole thing have been um registered so councillor henry bachler yeah i'm in favour chair for councillor bradnan um for councillor martin carne and for councillor peter fein against councillor to me hawkins or councillor debba rovitz against councillor heather williams against councillor richard williams for councillor ilyn wilson for councillor nick right for and myself councillor kippa hallings for that's eight in support and three against so that motion is carried as part of the recommendation once we get to the vote the next if i understand councillor to me hawkins you would like to propose that an informative is included um would you like to say exactly that but it's about including within the informative that there is some kind of liaison established between the parish council and the site manager um in order to deal with any problems that are rising immediately which does not take away the responsibility for enforcement of the council uh i think uh you've got that right chair good thank you so you'd like to propose that is there anybody would second that i'm quite happy to second that chairman that's councillor bradnan thank you so if we go to the vote on that um second change councillor henry bachler for councillor bradnan for councillor martin kahn for councillor peter fein for councillor to me hawkins for councillor debba rovitz for councillor heather williams for councillor dr richard williams for councillor ilyn wilson for councillor nick right for myself councillor pippel helings for so that is unanimous um in terms of that being adopted as part of the recommendation um we're about to move to the vote but i see that we do we have any other requests to speak as part of the debate before we go to the vote councillor bradnan um i think the only one we have additionally i think councillor to me hawkins has already spoken but i think we've got the request from councillor martin kahn thank you councillor martin kahn yeah it's certainly very brief to say that uh i mean generally uh satisfied with the proposals as amended but but in terms of the legal issue uh the there is a certain ambiguity as councillor williams has presented there will always be a certain amount of the uncertainty in terms of planning law we have been advised that it's that it is okay as the best of their knowledge we mustn't be afraid of taking decisions always upon the possibility of some uncertainty about the legal law where we can get we only can get the best advice and the best of our knowledge and i don't want us to become mice rather than um men or women so to speak um so uh i just feel that that that that needs to be considered in dealing with our consideration um how we decide thank you councillor martin kahn i just think that you know we are committee members we are not experts in in planning law all that we can do i don't know if it's a it's a necessarily a measure of sort of bravery it's about this is what we need to do we we need to base ourselves on the council that we receive which is from our officers and from legal counsel and they have contracted independent legal advice um that that's all we can do as committee members and i think as councillor richard williams said if that is then taken to to be contested to later stage and we all learn from that then then fine but at the moment as committee members i think what we must do is each of us now hear what we've heard um from our own from the advice that's being given to us and make a decision based on that the decision is around the varying of a condition which is condition seven it's on page 253 which is that we approve the application subject to the following conditions and informative and we have also just added a further condition and a further informative to that and i'll now go to a roll call um to see all of those who are for this recommend officer recommendation to approve the application for the varying of condition seven councillor henry bachelor for chairman councillor nebradnam for councillor martin carne for councillor pewter fein for councillor dr toomey hawkins for councillor deborah roberts um i don't think i've ever been called a mouse before maybe a witch but not a mouse um and i am going to vote against it for the reason that um i think we have to take the legal question into serious consideration my understanding has always been as a deborah roberts we did i'm really sorry because you do know we're just at the roll call of the voting them and i don't want to lose that thread and i i think we did hear in your intervention how we can see that i'm going to continue with the roll call councillor you are against and i understand that councillor he doesn't i think it's all true of iris councillor age rob and we can't do that i am going to ask that we do not speak over each and i'm going to continue with the roll call we're in the middle of the vote so it's for against or an abstention councillor heather williams um on the officer device because i fall for councillor dr richard williams for councillor aileen wilson for councillor nick right for and myself councillor tipper halings for i make that 10 and one thank you guys share i will i will count those up myself i think we'll do so that's 10 and four and one against and so that is moved for the approval of the varying of condition seven with that application thank you members it's um we're doing a bit of a marathon here thank you to all the members of the public thank you to those that make representations on that agenda item it's 224 we've gone past the four hour rate we agreed to do that so what i'd like to do now is move that we have a break and i'm right in asking 15 minutes for that break or does anybody is that okay yes chair we don't have to close sorry we don't have to close down do we chairman just leave our machines on that's what i understand so we don't actually officially close the meeting so everyone just sort of mute their microphones and their cameras thank you very much chairman thank you everybody so um 225 so that will be at 240 we will resume with the next agenda item thank you everybody for that that was a tough legal issue but we came down to sort of focusing on what the issues around that one and a long morning thank you take a break as the break 15 minutes long i'm not going to put a slide up i'm just going to leave it as is it'd be a lot easier to resume when we come back so thank you Liam yeah just be aware everyone that your microphones and cameras are still being broadcast so like mute them and uh switch your cameras off thanks thank you i'll do that myself now other things so and enforcement so nothing nothing that's going to engender a lot of debate oh councillor wilson we can hear you oh and then councillor bradnam so it's 240 um we'll just check if everybody's back so that we can continue with the agenda so i'll go through a little roll call and just see if we're all here councillor henry bachelor afternoon hello councillor bradnam i can see is here councillor martin carne yeah thank you can't really hear you councillor martin carne that we could councillor peter fein councillor dr toomey hawkins present chair thank you councillor deborah rovitz here chair thank you councillor heather williams yeah thank you dr ritchard williams yeah thank you councillor lume wilson here councillor nick right present thank you um so it was just councillor peter fein councillor peter fein are you with us i'm just texting oh who he is councillor peter fein you with us i've just texted councillor fein councillor peter fein are you with us now chairman i've just tried to call him and got his answer phone so oh there you are hello thank you councillor peter fein you're with us yeah who hand signals chairman i could see it's amazing peter are you are you with us if you can just sort of either say yes in the chat box or um say yes you've been ignored chairman he's there hi peter i can see you when you put your video on can you just are you able to speak yes thank you you can hear you can hear everything i'm assuming peter you can take fully part fully in the agenda items there thank you everybody so we're going to restart now with agenda item nine um hello Sharon thank you gender item nine which is something i think really really important it's wonderful to have this in front of us now as planning committee it's something that's been of um great concern for all of us of real interest of interest to parish councils um and things that have been even brought up in the meeting today in other meetings which is about you know the way we do business and the confidence that we have in the procedures that we have um our processes and our relationships to make sure that we're doing the job that we need to do and i think we all recognize the need for this review and we have the report we've received the report and that's now in front of us so Sharon brand whose assistant director delivery um is going to give a little presentation about that so we can consider it what we're being asked to do committee in terms of the recommendations on page three hundred and eighty um as to note the content and recommendations are set out in the planning advisory service report and note the arrangements put in place for a group to oversee implementation and you know recommendations around um the recommendations within the report and also agree that an update report um come back here to us in planning committee in April Sharon thank you very much for you want to give us an overview of this thank you thank you chair and good afternoon everyone um just to provide some background in relation to this item so south cambridge district council and cambridge city council jointly commissioned the planning advisory service to undertake a review with south cambridge district councils and cambridge city councils planning committees as well as the joint development control committee and this was very much in the context of the bringing together of the shared planning service the creation of the shared planning service and the ongoing wider service improvement program which does include a number of process and procedural updates and alignments the south cams district council review has now been completed and the report is in front of members and appended to this report and the planning advisory service report starts at page 385 of the agenda papers um the paragraph 11 of the officer reports at page 380 of the agenda papers sets out the process carried out by the planning advisory service including interviews with members officers and full parish council focus group sessions were also held and so that process was taking place from July through September just looking at the report itself there were a lot of positives in the report in terms of the feedback from the planning advisory service i'm just going to highlight a few threads um the planning advisory service particularly comment on the council's quick move to the virtual committees in the context of covid and commend the guidance and information available on the council's website and the effectiveness of incorporating public engagement into that process um some councils haven't done that which the planning advisory service note uh the revised chairs delegation process which has been operating for a while now the planning advisory service note that that provides an improved level of transparency members have a good understanding of their roles and a good grasp of the plan led system and local plan policies and good accountability for decisions in terms of national performance indicators quality of performance which means that there are a low number of appeal decisions lost against the council and the speed at which the council deals with planning applications is improving the planning advisory service also note that the committee has demonstrated an ability to take difficult decisions on large-scale strategic site planning applications however as expected there are a number of improvements that are highlighted in the report um that we need to focus on going forward and the report sets out a number of recommendations so i'll just highlight some of the areas uh that the planning advisory service indicate where there is scope for further improvements i would very much emphasize that some of the points highlighted in the report have already been um taken on board by officers through other processes so we're already part of the um chair planning services ongoing service improvement plan so items such as for example improvements to officer reports officer presentations and the need for more pre application presentations to planning committee um there are other issues that are highlighted in the report that there is a need for more collaborative working between members and officers as we move forward and there are suggestions about how we can use the member development program that we've already put in place to assist with that um we can also learn from best practice from other authorities by reviewing i think jointly uh members and officers of planning committees and their performance so there are a range of strategic issues and then there are some more what i would term housekeeping issues uh some of the actions uh suggestions as i've said have already been implemented um some of those are in process so the further engagement with parishes which is also a key issue that's highlighted in the report we have the three area development management teams now and we do have a program of engagement with the parish councils there will be some quarterly meetings that will be set up during 2021 and we will be focusing on some of those key issues of parish concern uh through those meetings throughout the year so there are nine recommendations stated within the past report or until the terms of reference have been ratified by the planning committee um four minutes will be taken when the group meets and these minutes will be made available to all elected members and the public um chairman could i can i um just suggest um Heather with respect to grammar you might want to change in at the very end of your item one you just refer to chair men in the plural uh not chair mans and then the other would be um that the group should act as one voice in other words um it's not they will report back to at the end of point two it would be okay we are now live as we were so i guess if you wanted to repeat the four minutes before we uh like the connection was dropped then um do so but yeah you're 100 live and the audio and vision is now working thank you chairman should i reread my motion and then move my motion in that case grammar aside chairman sorry Heather sorry i'm sorry would you like me to read the motion and then move the motion as we're now live yes just one moment so i'm sorry i was looking at me so liam are we now live i'm afraid i missed that yes sorry just to confirm again um yeah you are now live as as you were before so yeah both sound and vision are all all going well and is yeah all yeah you're good thank you good yes so we now have that in front of us um yes and so councillor Williams if you'd like to read the motion which is there thank you chairman so the motion that i am moving is that planning committee supports the establishment of a joint member and officer planning improvement group and one the planning improvement group will elect a chairman as its first order of business and that the chair be an elected councillor it's gone off the screen which i'm reading from it's an elected councillor and given the powers protections and authority that other chairmans of this council received by the constitution the planning number two the planning improvement group will produce a draft set of terms of reference which are to include which committee or public meeting they will report back to three no actions will be taken by the group outside of the scope stated within the past report or until the terms of reference have been ratified by the planning for minutes will be taken when the group meets and these minutes will be made available to all elected members and the public in moving this motion chairman committee members i would i would like to stress that it is an attempt that we can procedural issues to to one side in the in the faith that they will be addressed by this process we don't want to distract from the issues but we have to realise that this group is not something that this establishment is committed within the constitution which is completely new and therefore i feel from a governance point of view it would not be responsible for us to to carry on without knowing that information or knowing that information is due imminently i have utmost respect and i believe that our head of transformation is a fantastic officer however to have him as a chairman in my view would be to put him in a conflicted position which i do not believe is right for us to do and he would have an arm behind because as an officer as opposed to an elected member he will not have the full powers that we would have if we put in that position so fairness and protection of the officer and to ensure that this process is has teeth as it were and has all the powers and abilities that we would normally see as we're following a task and finish model which does not allow an officer to be a chairman i believe it's it's right that we have full collaboration but that it should be politically driven by those accountable to the public because we need to have confidence in this and we start from the basis of getting off on the right foot and we do that in the best way of knowing that the governance arrangements of this are good and they are tight and that all of us knows that this will be coming back to the public and then we may be able to rebuild that trust not only amongst ourselves but with our parish councils and members of the public also and so that is my reasoning and i hope that this will be supported as it's mainly about process governance and transparency and i look forward to the debate where we can discuss the issues that everything from the report thank you chairman thank you um before we go into sort of the debate of this motion do you have somebody who's seconding that motion i do councillor nick right okay thank you very much and what i'm noting is in terms of you know keep us really on focus in terms of recommendations to committee in terms of what we're looking at in this debate you know are the issues around the planning advisory report this is point b on page 380 which is noting the arrangements put in place for the group the task and finish group to oversee implementation of the report recommendations that's the context around that as the williams is you know referred to the process and governance of that group um do we have do you want to take it from the screen now councillor williams oh whoever's chairman it's not myself the Chris party thank you very much yes um councillor bradham do we have anybody who'd like to now speak to this motion um chairman yes um we do have councillor henry bachelor i also had some small grammatical points that the motion that that councillor williams might like to take on board i don't know whether you want to take those i think and also i would ask so sorry councillor nick right i should have asked you know if you're seconding it when you would like to speak um thank thank chairman and actually i was down to speak straight after heather williams i was against i would like to second the motion and presumably heather will have a chance to sum up at the end so i'm quite willing to speak straight away if you would thank you very much and so i'd like to you to ask you to invite you speak now councillor right thank you um and this is such an important issue because as members of the council we it's in all our interest to have an excellent planning service and there's no doubt over the last couple of years we've we've lost confidence of our parish councils which has always been fragile um and we just want to come up with a scheme that will encourage that to come back um we need to be viewed as transparent so as members we're all working in the same direction and with that in mind you know we want something that will have teeth and make the right recommendations to the right group whether it be cabinet scrutiny or just the planning committee uh so very important we get this right i think councillor williams is spot on but it should be chaired by a councillor rather than an officer because it does put the officer in a difficult position um with his fellow officers uh in the future if he if he or she is chairing it so i'm absolutely fully behind this motion and i'd commend it to the planning committee thank you very much councillor broughland chairman there were other speakers thank you to councillor right for pointing out so we did have a request to speak from councillor peter fein and then councillor richard williams i believe before you councillor peter fein thank you chair i sympathise with what councillor right has just said about putting an officer in a difficult position to share this group i think however that um this doesn't get wide enough actually and one of the first things identified in the report is that we are trying as we all know to integrate a shared planning service across the two authorities with three planning or rather development control committees um and uh there are going to be some lessons that we can usefully learn from each other across the city boundary uh i think we have to accept that what i i think we're calling the pig now which i assume is our way of um planning implementation group so it can't be to fein i think we wouldn't use that acronym and it's one thing i was going to mention um and i think Sharon in her introduction talked about the planning development group given the association with the acronym let's call it the development group for now shall we chairman i hadn't really thought that acronym would stick um it's the planning development group which i think is uh what is recommended in paragraph 14 on page 382 i would suggest it has to go rather wider than just south cams and the recommendations it makes will be just that i don't think they will be recommendations just to this committee and don't see this as being within the orbit of this committee even if it were confined to south cams issues i also think we have to bear in mind that this happens against the background of very significant changes in the whole planning system and that it may not be possible to resolve this in a satisfactory way within say the six month period of a task and finish group um we may need to set up a working group to review this over a period and make gradual changes the decisions on which will have to be taken by others and not by this committee thank you Peter just just for the record as well it's being proposed as a three month group which is what was um supported you know at this scrutiny committee meeting um just to clarify that point that's what i'm saying there thank you very much who's next to speak um the next one is the council richard williams chairman yeah council richard williams thank you very much chair uh yeah i'd like to support the motion that the other councillor williams has put forward um it does consent me a little bit that this this committee's got no constitutional status um so um it isn't really clear what rules it would operate under and if it did operate under the default standing orders of the council and the chair would get a casting vote um on the committee in the event there was a disagreement or a split a split vote um and i really think that's an invidious position to put an officer in um to give them a casting vote um and potentially a variety group of elected councillors um i really don't think we should be doing that so um again i'm sure the officer is more than capable of chairing this kind of committee it's just for um democratic and constitutional reasons i don't really think it's appropriate for officers to do that it's also worth bearing in mind what our constitution says about the role of officers um the role of officers being to um advise um elected members but the constitution says it's the role of elected members to take the policy decisions and the decisions um you know that operate the way the council um runs so um i don't really think it would be appropriate nothing as i say about the individual officer um but i don't think it would be um appropriate either given the role of officers and members and the problems around things like the casting vote um for an officer to chair um the committee so um i support uh the motion um that's been put forward thank you very much thank you cancer rich rilliams um and i do as i do understand i think we do have a legal monitoring officer with us so if there were any questions around any of the constitutional legal issues that people would like to clarify before um moving to a vote on the motion we could also do that who's asking to speak next council to me hawkins chairman council to me hawkins thank you chair um i think first of all perhaps we need to make some clarifications here this group of uh people looking at these recommendations are not going to be making decisions this is essentially a task and finish group which is looking at the recommendations made in the pass report and then providing to the administration their recommendations on how we should go about implementing um these recommendations that to me is their task is to say look these are the recommendations that they've made uh speak to whoever they need to speak to members other members of the planning committee um staff etc planning you know parish councils get all that information together bring ideas forward as to how we implement these recommendations it's not for them to make any decisions at all so in that light i'm sorry but i don't see that the planning committee at this stage can decide that it will be to put it in some phrase i've heard in the past george and jury frankly its role is to or the role of the task and finish group is to actually help the council to bring the ideas together as to how we implement the recommendations in a way that improves the service obviously um and so i think for me um this this motion i think is the wrong one to put forward because it's not a decision making committee it's a task and finish group taking forward the recommendations from the pass report thank you thank you who do we have next um we have councillor peter fein or i think he may have already spoken councillor peter fein you you did come up with what um a conclusion do you have anything else to say to the motion itself you i suspect my previous contribution may not have had much impact um because i have already spoken thank you no no it was just i knew you'd spoken before i wasn't sure if you wanted to speak again so the next person is councillor Deborah Roberts thank you councillor Roberts thank you very much chairman i don't think that this actually should be a contentious issue because i you know i've been thinking about this since the report came out and i'm really impressed by the positive um attitude that we all seem to me now taking yeah we've got various little things we think you know how did that happen how did this happen but like you know listening to Sharon ever so positive you know she's really facing what she needs to do and i think members are of this at the same ilk as well but it isn't a task and finish group i think we really need to clarify that it's not a task and finish group it's a new idea it's a new group um formation that does not fit in with the constitution and we can't break the constitution so therefore we we make it so that it will fit in that we that we don't break the rules it's not a task and finish group because um it's a joint working group of both councillors and officers or you know participating in inputting so it's it's it is different and it's got to be treated in a different form so to me it's quite a good idea today to say as we are doing we support it which we which we do very very much um but what we need to see is is uh it's terms of reference and you know every committee on South Cannes has a term of reference this is not a committee at the moment and it's a new idea so it has to have terms of reference and you know like the other people have spoken we do have confidence we don't always agree with officers but we have confidence that they are giving us good advice but our tasks are different it's for as council Richard William said it's for officers to advise based on their professional qualifications and abilities and it's for us to listen but make the decisions and I think it would be an onerous thing to actually have a chairman from the officers and I think that puts them in an invidious position because there will have to be the spokesman and you know as I said that isn't the task of the officers and you know we all know that we really are expected there have been naughty at times not to criticise officers and what have you in public but you know this is this is not fair on officers so I think um please let's all just accept that we want good to come of this we believe that good can come of this it's it's overdue when it's needed and we all know that but now that we are um being positive about it let's be just let's just make sure we do it properly let's have it this new committee with the terms of reference with a chairman of it who's a councillor who's accountable to the public um and let's just get on with the job because you know they will bring back the terms of reference to us we can see what it is if there's something that we think's missing we can add it but they also the main thing to remember is at the end of the day this group is working to provide this planning committee with the right format to do our job properly in the future and to improve on ourselves we can all improve um and that's what this is all about it's about moving forward now we've accepted the report which is good and bad it's it's a mixture but let's just get on and and take this motion forward it's not stopping anything it's absolutely not stopping anything it's been it's about it's all joining up thank you chairman thank you very much um so I would just like I think if we can clarify some perhaps of the the issues that have been raised um and as I say if we're looking this is one of the issues around process and we would like to also talk about the substantive issues of content of the report and make sure that planning committee feeds into it I understand that Rory McKenna is with us and he's our legal monitoring officer that can help so there have been a couple of issues raised here Rory and I wonder if you could help us one whether the remit of this is purely around planning committee or whether the recommendations that go around planning committee two whether planning committee can make this kind of decision when a scrutiny committee has already supported the establishment of this as I understand under task and finish I think um conditions you were saying Sharon but not you didn't use word as a task and finish group but if you could clarify that for us Rory whether or not there is a constitutional risk to um an officer chairing that as has been um questioned here um and any of the other constitutional concerns that were were raised around this and also from my own point I would just like to query whether in the motion it's um saying that the terms of reference would then need to come back to planning committee to be ratified and whether that indeed is a constitutional um necessity given the amount of time between um also different committee meetings um yeah so in terms of the remit of planning committee to be able to question um one the constitutional basis for this group and the way that the group is established thank you Rory thank you chair so chair if I can sort of assist me being given the uh given the background obviously this has come via the planning advisory service so they have made it very clear via recommendation eight that uh this member an officer group should be set up um on a task and finish model so it's not a task and finish group but their recommendation was that it should be set up on a task and finish model now um members will be familiar with task and finish groups and how they operate and but it's quite clear that the intention for PAS was that this group should not have that formality so in terms of decisions being taken by the group it's my understanding and and and I think it's clear that the terms of reference would be set by the group at the at the same meeting um but it's uh it's clear from the motion that is being put forward in recommendation three that the terms of reference uh would not be outside of the scope of the numerous recommendations that were contained within the PAS report and if they were outside of those recommendations then they would come back to planning committee but I think the purpose of the group is set up to consider each and every one of those recommendations and I would imagine that when the group first meets one of the jobs they will have to do is to try to ascertain which recommendations should go where but I think it's probably fairly clear that a lot of them will come back to planning committee in any event but that would be a job for the for the group in terms of who chairs the meeting um as I say that's that's a matter for for members really um I think that um the the purpose of this group is to um create better decision making in in all aspects it's to assist the assist the the the planning committee as I understand it the group will be taking decisions as such but they will be making recommendations back to planning committee or whatever committee may be required to consider each of the the recommendations now um the group wouldn't have voting powers as such so I think the best example I can give is recently involved in the constitutional task and finish group um which was a cross-party member group now there was no decisions no formal votes taken there was areas of disagreement and and challenge and what happened in that instance that and I must add that they were very few and far between thankfully but in areas where they might be disagreements um it though those views would be put back to the relevant committee so if there was a split decision for instance that would be reported back as such it wouldn't be reported back that there was a vote and that this was kind and that wasn't it would simply be reported back that these were the views of the members of the group and it would then ultimately be a matter for that committee to make a decision as to to what recommendation they would they would then follow and adopt obviously officers would have would have no voting powers um I think that um you know whether an officer chairs it whether a member chairs it that's obviously a matter for that's obviously a matter for for members I'm not sure if that covers all your questions and if it doesn't I'll be happy to come back in but hopefully that provides some clarification thank you so what we're saying is in terms of the risk concerned around decision making what we're saying this isn't a formal task and finish group has the sort of modality sort of the model as I understand um in terms of it has specifically you know it's got something to do and it's got a time period within which to do that and it would need to anyway within that first meeting look at you know how it's going to undertake that remit that it has you know and establish it's in terms of reference within that first meeting um and so as I said the motion is not looking to undo the establishment of the of this group within that but the concerns around the risk to an officer for an officer member group that there are there because it's not a decision making body and it's not a formal task and finish group those those don't have concerns for you they don't know that's that that's my that's my personal view you know but as you said it's a matter for members if members feel that they would like that group to be chaired by another member obviously that's within their gift yeah okay and in terms of where it reports back to that's something as well so partly you're saying this would you know be deciding which are the most relevant areas which could be planning or scrutiny or or council yes I believe yes I have to say I think what would probably happen at the first meeting is that those those members and officers on the group would it would be I envisage this group to be very much discussion based actually and I think that there will be a discussion about what would be the most appropriate committee to consider any of the the recommendations or discussions back from that group and I think that a lot of them will be planning committee I can see a lot of those recommendations within the past report coming back to planning committee but as I say the group may have a view on on on others where it's not entirely clear where the decision making lays and it may also be that the group said that not only for instance do they want to refer a matter to a particular committee for decision but they may also determine it appropriate to report back on certain matters to cabinet for instance but that would depend on the discussions in the nature of the recommendation the final thing was in terms of who ratifies the terms of reference and in the motion at the moment it's saying that would have to come back to planning committee to ratify so it says I think in number three it says no actions will be taken by the group outside of the scope stated in the past report and it says here or well or until the terms of reference possibly one would hope that if the terms of reference of the group are within the recommendations contained within the past report then I hope you know would it be necessary to bring those back to the planning committee but that might be something for a proposal of the motion to consider thank you okay and I see do we have another clarification question for Rory before we then go on to the other speakers who've requested to speak um chairman we can I sorry can I would you mind would you permit me to jump the queue I just wanted to point out that I have another meeting to go to at which I must leave this meeting at quarter to four four um but I just wanted to ask um Mr McKenna my understanding is that it's not for this committee to be determining how the task and finish group work the whole purpose of it being a a task and finish group is that the task and finish group decides the terms of reference and as you said that would be one of the first things that they decide and it would be for the that first meeting to determine how they were going to work within the recommendations that have been made by the past report they would never make a decision as you say they would only ever make a recommendation and they would determine which committee that particular recommendation was appropriate to to be sent to thank you Chad we're just I'm going to clarify again for everybody so we're it's not a task and finish group yeah can we just make sure we're using the right terminology because there's a lot of we're going into some sort of weeds here around what that is but thank you Rory forgive me but at scrutiny and overview I understood it was but I may have misunderstood it at scrutiny and overview I understood it was setting up a task and finish group can I can I just come in there because I think it's probably helpful just to read from the recommendation of the scrutiny report so the the recommendation of the 7b of the report said that the scrutiny and overview committee support the establishment of a joint member officer planning improvement group on a task and finish model to oversee the implementation of the the recommendations within the past report so just to be clear and I think possibly it's the use of the language within the past report of task and finish which is it's it's designed to be helpful but I think it's maybe caused a bit of confusion but it's not a task and finish group in the way members I think would know and understand task and finish groups but it it's one that was created on the model one I think the bottom line is if you look into the constitution there's nothing within the constitution which talks about a group of this nature so we've had to sort of couple together as best we can and within the spirit of what past have been asking us to achieve and just if it's helpful just recommendation contained within the past report does actually state so it talks about examining the possibility of creating a joint member officer planning improvement group on a task and finish model to take the improvement recommendations contained in this report forward alongside other necessary development areas so that's the that's the exact wording of the of the past report I hope that's helpful good thank you um so um can we can I also sort of can I ask councillor Henry bachelor when councillor nebradan goes would you be able to take over the the vice chair support in terms of the speaker order yeah I'm only a sub but absolutely I will do it thank you very much thank you and so can we go to the next clarification for um for rory I know we've got a list of speakers if we just should we just ask for any clarifications for rory I think the next person who asked to speak councillor martin kahn councillor martin kahn yes a lot a lot of the points were raised came up in the previous uh clarification uh but by rory uh basically I'm concerned about the the protocol here I've not still not quite clear how the group was set up who is therefore going to be the um who they're going to report to uh who makes the decisions whether this um it seems to be a dog's breakfast at a confusion um it would be clear nice to be I'm not sure that planning committee could make decisions on the issues that are involved does that not have to go to full council how would the reporting proceed to go could you give me some clarification about the the constitutional arrangements here I I think the truth is a lot of these matters are going to be resolved once the group meets to be you know you know we have to get the groups sort of up and running and once they meet as I say a lot of these these issues will be resolved I can absolutely 100 percent confirm there's no need for this to go to full councils in many respects the group probably could have just been set up by by officers of operational management but it was felt that members could could feed into the the process and that was the the reason why it was um it's been set up in the manner in which it has thank you so the next speaker is councillor to me Hawkins thank you councillor to me Hawkins uh thank you chair um right just for clarification really we've we've we accept that it's a group it's not a committee that's correct that's correct yes it's not a committee okay and obviously uh it's been set up uh through the administration uh cabinet together with exec looking at what was required and the time frame within which we wanted this to come back it was supposed to be in a quick a quick look at the recommendations and what can be done and put that in place quickly so we recognize the urgency of that um and I'm looking at the motion and it just seems to me and from what you've said this group has to report to a point rather than to different committees I don't see that it can decide which committees it takes recommendations to the administration requested the um the the review and it really you know I don't see that the planning committee can implement uh you know recommendations from the group and from what you've said it seems just suggesting it can go to scrutiny it can go to committee it can go to cabinet but we need a cohesive way in which the feedback from the group is dealt with and to me that seems to be to go back to the administration and it's the administration who will then be able to actually put in place what needs to be implemented am I correcting that assumption or not so perhaps the the the easiest way to try and to experience to take one of the recommendations within the PAS report so one of the recommendations which possibly might be one of the most contentious recommendations but we'll we'll we'll go to it nonetheless one of the recommendations is to keep on the review the scheme of delegation so the planning committee focuses on deciding the most important planning applications so when the the committee group sorry apologize when the group meets um and they consider that recommendation it would be very very clear that because planning committee is responsible for the the scheme of delegation that that group for instance wouldn't report back to cabinet on that matter because part of cabinet have no powers to to set the planning scheme of delegation therefore for recommendation two for instance that would 100 come back via planning committee and so I think that when and these discussions these are the types of discussions that I expect when the group is set up at their first meeting to go through each of the recommendations and take recommendation two for instance and say okay we know definitely that that has to be that that should be fed back to to planning committee thank you um if I may chair but actually the scheme of delegation itself is not being looked at by this group I mean that is for the administration or the constitutional group to look at so that I just feel that we're we are trying to make this committee what it shouldn't be and I what I don't want to see is that we've got recommendations going to different parts of the administration that we don't know about or can't actually monitor and that wouldn't be an effective way of working scheme of delegation is not for this for the planning committee is it and it's not for this group it is a recommendation but they will they wouldn't be the ones looking at it and that's just an example and if I can I've lost it now and also asking for the terms of reference we fully expected that the group itself will determine its terms of reference at its first meeting I take the point about the chair chairmanship of the group and that is fine you know we always look into improve so you know not having an officer if seen as the best thing to do then that's fine however its terms of reference shouldn't have to be approved by the planning committee this is a group that's looking to help improve the planning committee and you can't be bringing back the terms of reference back into the committee it's time to improve um and so I'm I'm I'm I'm still very concerned about this motion and I think it is it's not in the right direction and the group will be taken any decision anyway so point three is not relevant and minutes will be taken as usual and you know this should not be a special request or emotion I don't think so I'm sorry but I still I still don't see that we need three or four um or even two is required so why don't we carry on with the group as has been set up um let them have their first meeting let them have their terms of reference set that all up and start working otherwise we'll be holding them up what is done in three months thank you Councillor Timmy Hock is I'm going to ask also Councillor Henry bachelor who was asked for a clarification question Rory before you come back on that one yes thank you I mean it's in a similar vein to the other questions I mean I just want a bit of clarity on this motion that Councillor Williams has put in front of us I mean is this other points in there for this planning committee to decide or can some of the finer detail be trashed out at the first meeting that's just what I want some clarity on should we be deciding this now or should we leave it up to the group to govern itself essentially oh that's just a legal question for you well I think that is ultimately a point for members here today do you want to accept that motion in which case it's set by planning committee in and if you don't want it then obviously it will fall to the it'll fall to the group to set up the terms of reference so it's it's entirely matter for members how they wish to do it okay thank you and Councillor Richard Williams I think you're next thank you chair thank you for letting me have a second go at this as well I must say I'm I'm all confused this is this is this I know we didn't want to get stuck in in process but Councillor Hawking's has just suggested that this group is not going to look at the scheme of delegation even though it's a recommendation but he's also saying the group will set its own terms of reference I mean both of those can't really be true because if it can set its own terms of reference on the basis of this report presumably it could decide to look at recommendation two which is in this report and nowhere does it say a list of the recommendations that this group can or cannot take forward as it's just been suggested that somehow there is a list of recommendations in here that are for this group and recommendations which aren't I find no list of that I'm afraid this is becoming less and less clear as we go on as to what this group is actually going to do I did have another point of clarification which is why this couldn't be a task and finish group we're creating this group which has no constitutional basis at all therefore we have no idea really what the rules are that apply to it so why couldn't it be a just a task and finish group as councillor Bradnam is quite right when it was introduced in scrutiny it was said it would be a task and finish group because of course task and finish groups can co-opt members to the group who are not elected members so we could have a group of officers and members on a task and finish basis in fact under the task and finish rules in the constitution which had non-councillors on it they just have to be co-opted by the group and that I think would be you know at least a clear basis we'd all know where we were rather than this situation where we don't know where we are but given if this is the you know this is the proposed I think having some constitutional rules as in this motion would be better but as I say I'm now confused as to what this group can and cannot do because it's been suggested there are things they can't do but that's not in the motion. So now I think because Richard Chair what I'd just like to do is what I heard was it's actually about where it reports to on the recommendations and I think that was councillor Tuma Hawking's point is whether or not the issue of scheme of delegation where that goes to in terms of a recommendation rather than whether or not the planning development group you know reviews the recommendations. If that is indeed the case then this group can look at scheme of delegation it's vital that an officer doesn't chair it because that's a really potentially contentious issue and not one that members we should be abrogating our responsibilities for to officers it's not fair to officers to do that. Okay and I think what we'll do now members is take this to a vote we're going to ask Councillor Hillard with him as you're able to come back and speak to the the group now in terms of your motion if you wanted to say anything additional at the end of that that debate. Thank you Chairman um so the first thing the first thing that I would like to summing up is say that the conversation that's gone on the debate that's been had is actually the main reason I brought this motion the truth is we don't know so we've been told that it's not going to be a decision-making body however it will be deciding what what it can talk about and where that that gets reported to that in itself is a decision so the two cannot compete other things that have been mentioned and words of probably envisaged you know and and so on and so forth we've got a cabinet member who you know quite quite rightly is saying the cabinet set this up so it should report to cabinet however nothing that we know it so far means that would actually have any basis or any reality or would ever even happen and actually to be completely clear the scheme of delegation of the planning committee is not a political function it's just it's a function of the planning authority it's a statutory function and only planning committee no cabinet interference only planning committee can actually adopt that scheme of delegates so we've got conflicts there in itself as well if there was a decision made about the number of people on this committee and the time it was taken how it everything else and nobody's had involvement with that we've heard that other than cabinet and offices we're relying on a task and finished model in a task and finished basis but already cherry pissing what we will or won't use in that for example the chairmanship where we've got clear evidence and I'm being told that some of these things are not relevant and we don't happen anyway in that case my argument would be what's the problem with adopting the motion so we've had complete conflicting information given here it is an entirely summed up why I brought this in the first place because otherwise what we are doing is we are giving authority in supporting this today and the establishment of a group to be self governing from this committee is a statutory function of this council which is not a political function a statutory function and we are then going and saying that we are going to have this and it's going to cabinet it should all go to cabinet all go in one place knows you know some of it might do this that we never support the motion that the terms of reference this doesn't say this motion does not say that this committee says the terms of reference all it does is ensure that the terms of reference comes back to us and we see it before any further action is done because right now we don't know what we're voting for they should be allowed to set their own terms of reference I understand that and that's why it's for them to do that so there's a statutory body in here with the people and this is planning this is a research this is we should be able to see that before it is enacted and then have the opportunity to raise concern as it is because right now truth is from this debate nobody knows and that is not a satisfactory and the governance is so crucial to gain confidence I'm excited if people aren't here thank you very much Casler Heather Williams and just as a point of clarification I'm looking at page 388 so that we are all clear recommendation two when we've referenced scheme of delegation the recommendation what it says is the isn't a recommendation scheme of delegation what it is is saying that it's kept under review that's the recommendation and that a formal review is undertaken in no later than a year I just wanted to clarify that point so what we have in front of us is this motion we have scrutiny having support of the establishment of this planning development group it's saying that in its first meeting it should set up its own terms of reference it has proposed that the chair of that is head of transformation that is something that could be decided by the group deciding on its remit the recommendation for the way it was set up was put forward by cabinet of the administration to scrutiny and it was established as you know was supported its establishment under that what we have is a motion which from council Heather Williams has brought forward we have that had that on the screen we've had just had that and debated we've had legal guidance and advice in response to some of the queries from Rory McKenna in terms of some of those challenges that were considered constitutional challenges to whether or not it could be set up in the way it was and as I understand that there aren't constitutional risks in the way it has been established and that much can be decided within the first meeting I understand that Councillor Williams was putting forward is a way of agreeing how that's put forward with the three points that were in that motions sorry to interrupt but can I just propose we go to a vote on the motion I'm just going to say that now so therefore with that summary which I think is one of the recommendations Councillor Bradenham is that we guide decision making by coming up with a summary of what's sort of being said which is what I'm trying to do just there and therefore we come to a vote on that motion which has been proposed by councillor Heather Williams and is seconded by councillor Nick Wright so I'm going to do that as I hear there are differences of opinion so I am going to do a roll call councillor Kaye Dawn can you take your camera off thank you very much and we'll go to a roll call members and this is as I said on be of recommendation which is around sort of the process and governance of this group councillor Henry butchers this is whether you're sorry for against or abstaining on the motion as presented by councillor Heather Williams sorry chairman can I just have clarification maybe in my old brains getting muddled at this time of the day we are voting on the new motion aren't we yes yes thank you very much chairman just what you're saying we're voting on the motion presented by councillor Heather Williams and seconded by councillor Nick Wright so you could say for against or abstain councillor Henry bachelor I'm against you councillor Bradenham against councillor Martin Kahn against councillor Peter Thane against councillor Dr Toomey Hawkins against councillor Deborah Roberts for councillor Heather Williams for councillor Dr Richard Williams for councillor Eileen Wilson against councillor Nick Wright for councillor Pippa Hylings myself against that's seven against and for supportive and therefore the motion is not carried and chairman I must leave at this point thank you for your support councillor Bradenham as well and councillor Henry bachelor will be supporting now in terms of the rest of the debate um the rest of that recommendation to committee was around the substantive nature one was to note that um note the report um note this was had the arrangements of this and agree that an update report on progress of implementation of report recommendations and of those recommendations coming back to planning committee in April and obviously we've just heard note in April but also some of the recommendations um could be brought for discussion as well at at planning committee do I have anybody else who would like to speak to the substantive issues within the report as Sharon Brown said she and Jeff um are very much listening to any of those comments and recommendations that are there it's not the only opportunity and as I understand um Jeff is from a previous briefing is open to doing a survey to all committee members to make sure that um there are multiple opportunities for planning committee members to provide input um but yes so on on the substantive items now committee please thank you very much in terms of the content sorry what's what I mean in terms of substantive we'll be happy with the speakers list yeah councillor Heather Williams first yeah thank you councillor Heather Williams thank you thank you chairman sorry Heather I think we may have lost you I'm sorry councillor Heather Williams I'm sorry we've I think we've lost you in terms of both video but also sound quality audio quality sure now I'm sorry Liam could you is there an issue with the whole thing or is that just yeah no like to me it just sounds like she's suffering like poor connection you know because you can hear little snippets coming through every now and again like that that's what I would advise is it's just her wi-fi is is playing up so maybe just pause for a second no yeah wait is she oh chairman I'm back but I think I put my camera on again I'm I'm going to yeah that's fine if there's a bandwidth issue thank you councillor Williams and I'm I'm going to go really quickly just in case just in case it comes up again um but yes um um one like parish councils has asked me in relaying in this report um about paragraph 4.36 and really would like the council to take into consideration about weight and what they've said is when there's a difference of opinion on the weight applied to a legitimate planning consideration between an officer and a parish council that leads to officers recommending a different outcome then the issue should be discussed with the parish council and if it cannot be resolved then it should go to the full planning committee for fairness and I think I think that's actually a fair point that we should look at because we do have in 1.11 about the parishes being ignored and later on it does go on to say about the number of applications coming to to committee so I thought it's important to to relay that message um and then for myself um I do welcome some of the things in the report about um I I would like to have more regular updates on the five-year housing land supply I think that's something as a committee we've actually asked for on several occasions and to to my reference I don't think we've ever had a had anything come through on that on that score and I think to be clear I think regular means not once a year we are making decisions and we're asked often to take into consideration the impact on the five-year housing land supply so we ought to be more regularly informed than we are so I look forward to seeing how that is proposed but I would like to say that it should be more than annually and I really would like the the group that looks at this to look through and carefully look at what it says in relation to more cross-party um cooperation and support and information because I think that in itself can lead to a breakdown in trust not only internally but externally as well and I'm just to be clear I'm referring to 4.23 um I I agree that the way that the council has adapted to virtual meetings has been good as has just been demonstrated by my camera it's not always perfect but it but it is um good strides forward um and we do need to know I think the in 4.18 what it says in relation to mistakes you know that that is that is serious um it does need to be considered and I think that would be in my eyes that would be the first thing to to look at because you know we need to get our basics right um and we need to start building faith and we're not going to do that while we're having um those sorts of issues um I would also say possibly quite deeply as we have the chair of the staffing employment committee that on 4.27 um I appreciate that the influx of new staff etc is is a um a management issue however we do have a staffing employment committee and we do look at things like retention and I would encourage this group to look at the other committees that the um council has and see where those committees can also be utilised best so I think that's it just in case my my bandwidth goes again I think I've highlighted through through the through the report that I would I would like more regular briefings um you know and I come at that from because you know as a group leader but for my group as well um but however when it comes to recommendations in this report I do not feel in clear conscience I can support the establishment of a group where not only do we have confusion but we also do not have clear parameters clear governance and and I also now as emotion has fallen do not have a clear view of when we will get sight of that or what recourse it will take and we do not know they may quite clear we do not know whether this will be a politically reporting group like AK to a political body such as cabinet or whether it will be focusing on the statutory function which is apolitical it does not give me confidence in what is actually been highlighted in the report about the need for more cross-party in apolitical nature and while I wish the group well because it's a very important thing that they're about to embark on from a governance point of view I think it's hardly irresponsible to not have at least a report for that information and I can't support that thank you chairman thank you very much Catherine Heather Williams um and thank you for those substantive items as well and I'm sure that they'll be taken forward and taken forward by the the group as well as minutes from this meeting members um you know this is partly our opportunity to have to have looked at the substantive content of this report and I just wondered if you know there were things that you also others of you wanted to point out as planning committee in this opportunity in a way of feeding in on on those recommendations any other comments you have on them or where you're sort of very supportive of those recommendations councillor Roberts chairman councillor Deborah Roberts thank you again chairman um I'm sorry but I've now lost confidence in this um I think we've just lost a golden opportunity to actually make sure that we were setting ourselves on the right train um I'm sorry but it seems to me that this has been a terribly political vote um planning is supposed to be a political this was a chance for us emotion just to clarify um and it was a chance for us actually to indicate that that report had been taken on board I'm afraid it hasn't um and I have no confidence now in that what you're doing is actually going to uh oblige um the group of people who recommended to us um the changes that we need to be made so I have to say no I'm not going along with this it's a whitewash now and it'll come back to haunt us thank you Councillor Deborah Roberts um just before the next sort of as chairman also one of the members of this group and as I introduced this item um as I said this is hugely important as a group it's been put forward as a joint member officer group and I recommendation one is about how we improve relationships and communications the ability to have the kind of group that was described by Rory McKenna our monitoring officer where we work together in a discursive deliberative manner looking at the recommendations understanding how that bringing in all of um further confidence contributions and evidence discussing them um and then providing the recommendations for that myself as a member of that group know that we've all said this report was fair in both what it said has been good but also in its criticisms and we need to take on board those criticisms and I as a member of this group will have actually showed everybody this will not be a whitewash in any way and as I've heard from Sharon at the beginning many of the um recommendations that were about the way in which development management happens have already been taken on board and already changing and transforming practice in for example the way in which the patch managers development area managers are already um setting up that way of working together with parish councils as Heather Williams has said you know if there is more regular communication they feel that they have the flow they can talk through the concerns they've had with an application with the planning officers and the heads of those planning officers in that particular area before then a recommendation is made for it to come to planning committee will um I would hope and I think the group would look at that these are ways in which we can do it but they're already starting to act on those recommendations which shows that there is a real commitment to to to really take on board these recommendations um I do have other people ready to speak Councillor Henry of actually he'll be good we've got councillors Khan and then Wright thank you councillor Martin Khan uh simply I wanted to comment that I'm very much in favour of the recommendations of the report uh but in terms of the role of of the group I think it's clear now uh that the from all the discussions that the line of uh of operation is uh from from from the group by the um scrutiny committee then to cabinet so that that that is a far clear way I think the so councillor Martin Khan we're not going back over the government we're talking about the recommendations within the report please I'm pleased of this I'm pleased of this I think it's got a enable we have an able committee a group established who are perfectly capable of doing this and I hope we can go forward um and note the recommendations and it's the right the right way forward it's not a it's not a rejection of somebody will comment it's a it's a comment about um so Martin thank you Martin what I'm saying is we won't go over to what we're asking now is around the content and the recommendations themselves away from the establishment of the of the group what I'm saying is you are supportive of the the recommendations which are in that report um yeah thank you yes I am yes thank you very much and councillor Nick right just to say that I'm supportive of the recommendations um and I'm pleased Martin uh councillor Martin Khan's just spoke then because talking of the group which he previously described before we tried to amend it as a dog's breakfast uh you know it in his own words um I am really worried that this group has no direction doesn't know who to report to doesn't have any clear leadership it is as he called it that at the moment and that needs to be addressed very firmly and quickly to give us some guidance on you know how we're going to you know we're going to make recommendations on the recommendations that were put forward quite clearly bypassed and you know it makes you wonder with this uncertainty if they hadn't um advised that we had to have this group that we could have just gone ahead and implemented the recommendations thank you I am going to try as chair to say that we've had the motion which is around the governance which was B we um will everybody I'm sure all of the members of that group and committee committed to now looking at how we take it forward what I am inviting in this part of the debate is detail around the recommendations themselves beyond the recommendation about the setting up of that that group so these are things that would feed in to that group and two officers thank you very much who do I have now councillor Henry bachelor we have two councillors councillors Hawkins and then Richard Williams thank you councillor doctor to me Hawkins on the recommendations please thank you chair um I mean I am thankful to the uh uh pair reviewers for this quite comprehensive report and just to let um you know those who are watching know that we have begun to take on board a number of these recommendations and um you know we knew we're doing some things well and we knew that some things weren't happening as well as they could um you know training is an important one and one of the things that uh you know members will notice is that we have started to do what we call bite size training sessions ahead of planning committee meetings on issues that you know members want to know about and this has helped I believe in terms of actually understanding um some of the issues relating to the applications that we then go on um to to determine and in terms of parish councils I mean parish councils have felt for a very long time way past two years well you know for as long as I've known planning committee um and it's it's the effect of thinking that they are not listened to because they're not told that they have been listened to and these are the reasons why their request isn't being granted and we are now doing better on that because we are now you know telling talking to them before um you know it's shown is made as whether or not to go to committee uh they even when it is uh the request doesn't get granted they now get notification of why that is and that is helping them to understand rather than feeling that they're not been listened to and I think the communications part of it we do really need to get better at that and we will get better at that so there's good things in here and I am looking forward to what will come out of the development group frankly um and I'm sure that at their first meeting they will sort out well that will leave that one thank you what they're going to be doing and how they're going to be doing it but this is a report which I think we can all stand by and which you can all support because it enables us to serve our residents even better and that is the whole point of this so thank you thank you and I and I think what the development group probably will be looking at is not assuming that the communications have got better because we've done something but also the ways in which we engage with parish councils to find out if they are really seeing you know that difference and not just assuming that yes Councillor Richard Williams please thank you very much chair um there's a lot I welcome in this report I think it's very well put together I think the group has done a good job um and obviously I what Sharon Brown said at the start of the meeting I was very pleased to hear um you know I think the officers are approaching it in in exactly the right way um I mean I hope how to say I hope a lot of good can come out of this I think um thinking about the way the officers and members communicate with each other and the cultural behaviours the report talks about around that I think that would be a very useful thing um that we could do um just in terms of understanding it a little bit more about each other's roles and each other's perspectives and and respecting those roles and perspectives you know on both sides obviously um the training I think would be very very um good as well I mean I'd particularly like to see maybe some briefing on specific issues that we know are coming up in planning committees so for example we've had some questions about fallback positions um recently it would be useful if members could be given a short you know uh short training session on the law around fallback positions before committee so we're not having to try and work out in committees I think a lot of good can come out of this report um so I do um I do um welcome it I mean I I'd say a little bit just about but but the the context of it I mean it's a shame we've had a party line that given that um one of the things this recommendation this report talks about um is trust and at this late hour I would I would love it if we could iron out these procedural questions behind the scenes so that we can all start on the basis of um you know the best possible trust and confidence um in in the committee and I I will just say that my concerns about the constitutional basis of it they're not a party trek they are genuine concerns about having a committee without you know any any firm constitutional foundation but I accept we've had that argument um but anyway there's a lot I would welcome and probably welcome in this report and I hope we can move forward positively thank you thank you very much um Councillor Richard Williams and just to clarify that you know that's why I brought Rory in that um it was just to understand and reassure people around those constitutional challenges that were brought up not not as a party political issue um committee I'm going to move now that we look and move to a vote around the the recommendations from officers on this and it has as one recommendation made up of these parts it's recommended that planning committee note the content and recommendations set out in the planning advisory service report note the arrangements put in place for the development group that will oversee the implementation of the report recommendations and agrees that an update report on progressive implementation of the report recommendations should be provided to planning committee in in april um and I'm going to do a roll call so please say whether you are for against or abstaining and support of the recommendation in the presentation of this report so starting with Councillor Henry bachelor for chairman thank you councillor braddenham is no longer with us as I understand councillor martin kahn for councillor peter fein for councillor dr toomey hawkins for councillor debba roberts again councillor heather williams right so amc or b against I thought that might be good I think I'm going forward um because it says I've put it forward to a vote as one recommendation um I'll change it to against chairman if that helps but yeah sorry about that I think actually I'm not against the group it's no I understand yeah I understand would if I'd have a motion sort of divide it up okay um councillor dr richard williams abstain councillor eileen wilson for councillor nick right against and myself for halings four that's six four three against and one abstention so the recommendation um is adopted and we have noted the content the arrangements and agreed that an update report come forward and wish and I think notwithstanding everything that's made here everybody does wish that development group um really all strengthened and um good luck with really taking this forward thank you everybody 20 past four thank you Sharon for presenting that thank you committee we're moving to agenda item 10 but it's 4 20 um does anybody need a short break before we go into agenda item 10 or can we just move forward chairman I'm gonna have to leave because my daughter's nursery's calling so I may or may not be back depending on what the ringing about yeah thanks so just let me when you come back in thank you very much thank you chairman anybody else sorry I will have to leave as well councillor nick right I have a meeting at five o'clock thank you to nick are you leaving now or at five o'clock five to five okay thank you for letting so would you like us just to move forward I'm assuming from that let's move on please yeah okay good thank you everybody will move on to agenda item 10 in your agenda report part that's on page 401 um and this is about an enforcement action um but given the recommendations which is a decision therefore it's being treated in a way as an application because there will be public speakers allowed on this point um and this is around 146 Cambridge Road Wimpole um and the lead officers on this one Stephen Kelly sorry I've lost my notes in terms of who will be presenting this one in terms of the officers thank you Nigel Blaisey and I'll bring you in and what we're being asked to um decide is the recommendation committee members that planning committee authorised the head of legal services in consultation with the joint director of planning and economic development but in the event that engagement with the owner occupiers of the site is unsuccessful in securing compliance with the condition to initiate measures required to secure compliance with condition one of planning permission s stroke 0583 stroke 1 4 stroke f l through an application to the court for an injunction under s 187 b of the town and country planning act 1990 as amended Nigel thank you very much for for being here if you would introduce yourself and then give us the context for this item thank you certainly thank you chair so yeah my name's Nigel Blaisey I'm the delivery manager for development management um I'll just share my screen with you I've got a I've got a presentation did you just confirm please chair that you can see the screen okay yes i can thank you all right so this is a this is a very wide view of the site it's just you put some context in place so the site is actually here but I will be zooming in to show you two more detail of course so here's the village of Wimpole and the village framework is drawn fairly tightly around there and this is the avenue to Wimpole hall which is to the north so this is the a 603 which came just off to the east and this is the 1198 the joins Huntington and Royston so I'll just zoom in a little so this is the site in here my apologies that I don't have a red line drawn around it but I'm moving my point around hopefully you can see that um so this is um this is actually the old Cambridge road that you can see here it joined up and that's it's the old Cambridge road it's now a spur off of off of the a 603 and there's these are dwellings here um and this is agricultural land to the north and we've got some commercial buildings over to the way I'll zoom in again so again I'm going to draw around the the edge of the site so you can see the extent of it um there's an access point is in here now this used to be an old builder's yard many years ago and there is a building on site here which is not part of the proposed action um that's it that has been there for many many years um so you've got hard standing here this is the the mobile home quite a large mobile home and then you've got a structure here which is an open sided sort of carport type structure and then here you've got another building which is um an amenity building so right so my apologies these are not up-to-date photographs but they are representative of what's on site at the moment so you can see this is this is the the large mobile home itself and then you can just see this open structure to the right which is here and then to the right of that you've got this um this amenity building so I thought to give you a bit of a rundown of the background to the sides of history and and what action we've taken so in 1975 an established certificate was granted for the operation of building engineering business um and then an application was submitted on that use but then later withdrawn um really in 2014 is when we first the mobile home appeared on site and we received a retrospective um planning application for the change of use of the land to residential caravan site for one gypsy family two caravans included one static and the erection of the amenity building now at that time um because it was unauthorized development we did a um an enforcement investigation these are the photographs you can see data 26 March 2014 um so the site was largely cleared um this space was put down um and this is the mobile home that was later put on this space so the amenity building yeah it was put up in this location here so that's just another view looking back at the at the mobile home at the time and then this is the point of access um so the mobile home's actually moved over to the right from where it is today um right so on 26 March um we served an enforcement notice and the breach of planning control alleged was without planning permission changing use of the land to stationing residential application between unit mobile home and carrying out spot operation development upon the land by laying hardcore or my heart standing for the mobile home and essentially the requirements of the notice were to cease the use and remove all the structures and hard hard standings so in June 2014 the the planning application I referred to before that was submitted um around the time mobile home was erected was refused and it was refused for four reasons so we felt the applicant had failed to satisfactory demonstrate that he and his family were actually gypsies for the purposes of planning policy um we felt the development failed to preserve the character and appearance of the landscape and was considered incompatible with its location and the site was felt to line an unsustainable location well outside of any village framework so what I showed you that the group of dwellings that I showed you are not within any village framework and then finally we felt that the applicant had failed to demonstrate by way of a suitable transport statement that the continued use of the site was not resulted on highway safety right so um they were appealed in July 2014 both the enforcement notice and the planning appeaser were appealed now the the planning appeal was allowed um having in regard to the personal circumstances of the appellants but with a number of conditions including condition number one which is the critical one and this one only granted consent for a limited period or two years and at the end of which all of the all of the mobile homes and buildings and structures had to be removed and the use had to cease the only thing wasn't included was the was the hard standing which the inspector felt did not um generate any harm so the inspector was not prepared to grant a permanent commission and these are some extracts from the appealed decision so the inspector felt that the prevailing sense of place has been compromised by the introduction of the substantial static mobile home on the agricultural side of the road despite the established presence of the former building engineering yard structure that's the existing building that I referred to and the inspector said I find the substantial harm to the character and appearance of the countryside would be caused by the appeal scheme in the event that the existing land use and post-muted building were allowed to remain indefinitely by reason of a permanent planning commission and the realization of sustainable development objectives will be similarly compromised and farm associated areas would carry similar weight now as as you know the condition was not complied with and the use of the site continued so as a result of that in June 2018 we served a breached condition notice that was not complied with we prosecuted on that basis and in December 2018 the owner of the site was convicted for failing to comply with the notice we did receive another application in 2019 for the mobile home but it was not registered or subsequently progressed it was invalid and it never went anywhere um the the occupiers remained on site and then in May 2019 we again um the the occupiers was convicted for failing to comply with the notice yet again so since then the council has sought to engage with the occupiers owners to determine their personal circumstances and needs but we have had no response a request for the occupier to complete a needs assessment was also made in early 2020 but again no response was received um local residents remain concerned with the unauthorized use and the harm identified continues to take place uh on the site um so if I just go through really the basis for the recommendation so officers remain in the view that the site continues to give rise to planning harm as identified by the appeal inspector and that securing compliance with the planning condition of the initial planning condition is of interest one option would be to serve another enforcement notice as you have seen in the report but we told this yes all right just one moment councillor B to feign could you mute please um because there's disturbance coming in in Nigel's presentation thank you councillor B to feign can you mute thank you I am mute yes thank you Nigel thank you thank you um so one option would be to serve another enforcement notice as we we've set out in the report but um taking account of the occupier's failure to act following the two convictions and the lack of engagement to date this approach is not considered likely to be effective the officers have sought advice from council which has suggested that the most appropriate means to achieve compliance is through an injunction um one or more of the occupiers of the site has been identified as having gypsy or traveller status as I said and the inspector broadly accepted this um before any potential injunction is taken the local planning authority would need to carefully consider the personal circumstances of the occupiers recognising that the courts will also consider whether the local planning authority has taken account of the personal circumstances of the defender and any hardship that the injunctive relief might cause so officers will again need to try to engage with the occupiers both to continue to seek compliance but also to undertake the needs assessment and to understand their personal circumstances and as part of any application to the courts for an injunction the local planning authority would need to consider any change in planning circumstances and the occupier's needs and personal circumstances having regard to article eight of the european convention on human rights the provisions of the Equality Act particularly having regard to COVID-19 statements to adopt local plan policy H22 and the NPBF so authority to seek injunctive action we believe may encourage the occupiers to engage but should they continue to fail to respond we feel we would still need to steer compliance with the planning condition because of the ongoing harm and we therefore recommend that the committee grants authority to seek injunctive action to do so and I'll just put the formal recommendation from the report up on the screen thank you chair apologies there um yes any clarification questions for Nigel we have one from councillor fein councillor Peter fein thank you chair i'm surprised that the authority needs uh approval from this committee uh don't normally require that for enforcement action to be taken why in this case and surely in relation to the needs assessment it's clear that's not going to happen before the enforcement action further enforcement action is taken um can it not be negotiated afterwards um yes thank you chair um in terms of the the first question um the the the need for the committee to consider this is um is because of the scheme of delegation effectively we don't have authorization as officers to um to make this decision it needs to be a committee decision could i ask you to repeat the second question please sorry i didn't quite catch it i was suggesting that if the needs assessment has not been possible that could follow once the further enforcement action is taken is is it required to have the needs assessment before anything can proceed i think um we we need really to understand the personal circumstances of the of the occupiers of the building um that would be far preferable to just taking action without that um we have tried to understand those by approaching the occupiers but as i said in my presentation we've been unsuccessful with that so far they they they just have not responded to us um so we we would hope that if the committee is minded to grant us this authorization that might help us um in in trying to engage with the occupiers um but if if they if they failed to engage with us then i think we would still we still feel that we would need to approach the court and we would have to explain that to the courts in seeking the injunction that we had made every attempt to understand their circumstances um before taking the action but we're in a position where we feel we need to address this this is a the mobile home has been there for many years now um we haven't been successful with the action that we've taken so far so we feel we need to take this step um but ideally we would do that i mean in full knowledge and understanding of the circumstances of the of the occupiers but if we're not able to engage with them we we we would like to take the action anyway and it's up to the courts of course whether they would grant us the injunction thank you Nigel do we have any more questions not that i can see chair no good thank you so um members will now go to the public speaking section for this item on the agenda um and i think we have a representation from the parish council councillor Ian hack are you with us and thank you so much for your patience and waiting for this item to be addressed thank you that's okay thank you for the invitation can you hear me okay i can but i can't see you okay hi uh camera and and councillor Heather Williams are i think are you with us but um if you can turn your camera off i think we can see you now Ian okay is that okay yes and oh half of you's disappeared right okay hang on let's try that that's better yes thank you and the first question would be whether you have authorisation speak on behalf of the parish council uh yes i do yes yeah and you you know the procedure do you by now that you have three minutes to to speak to yes that's right yes so so i've just prepared some notes uh so on behalf of windfall parish council i support the application for enforcement action 146 Cambridge road there's been a lot of frustration expressed by residents in Cambridge road and the neighboring wind bridge close the length of time this whole process has taken whilst i understand that each stage has to be completed carefully there is deep feeling of resentment that the applicant has been able to stretch the rules to suit their own purposes and that if the local resident has reached any planning laws in such a way they've not been able to play the system in such a way and for so long the residents have also expressed their deep concern about the considerable expense of this case has resulted in which ultimately falls upon us all as council tax payers whilst i respect this meeting is here today to discuss breaches of the planning regulations i would like to make you aware that over the last five years there have been many instances of anti-social behaviour in relation to this site loud music into the early hours dangerous dogs that have been allowed to roam loose resulting in at least three attacks which required police involvement a legal dog with breeding and frequently burning foul smelling waste which is which obviously hasn't been very pleasant for the for the neighbors such actions i believe further demonstrate their contempt for abiding by the rules and any intent to integrate with the local community i'd like to take this opportunity to thank our district councillor aiden vandal and the officers at sdc for their painstaking work on this case and i trust now that there will be a swift and successful conclusion to this matter thank you thank you very much and and as you say what we must stick to are the material planning considerations that we have within us thank you very much anybody like any questions to to ian can't see any chairman thank you very much and so now to local member councillor aiden vandal yep good afternoon good afternoon committee thank you very much for um let me speak um so the report sets out i think very clearly the planning considerations at hand um as you've heard the issues around this the use of this land began nearly seven years ago um and with the exception of these two uh temporary years of permission um the use of this land has been unauthorized uh the planning harm is quite clear and this was accepted by the appeal inspector who got to the temporary permission uh the the impact of the unauthorized use of this land has been very severe locally uh and and this has been really unfortunate um throughout the period uh the council has sought to respect the circumstances of the owners not surprised um the the grounds for seeking any junction um are robust we've had this uh advice from from council uh council and the council our council i think would have a very good chance of success um at this point given um our actions as far i think it's uh reasonable to be forward uh with work on an injunction uh on the basis proposed in the recommendation that is uh uh if the engagement with the owners uh unauthorized does not succeed uh the council as you've heard has sought to engage based on the planning issues and on the housing needs um as this matter proceeds i think we will be wise to allow officers some leeway in how to manage the interaction in the legal process and any engagement i would say it would be uh clearly better if engagement was achieved um but we do do really need to move forward uh nevertheless so i very much hope you can uh support this officer recommendation uh in report uh and support uh the council and especially support local residents as they seek to resolve this this long long-standing and very serious planning breach thank you very much thank you and do we have any questions for um councillor van doi one from councillor right councillor right thank you chairman my question is to speak when we throw the ah okay thank you very much thank you very much um councillor van doi i i'll open this now to debate and we'll start with you councillor nick right and i know that you've got the time pressure as well so thank you thank you and i i wanted to you know say that we've heard a lot about harm in this and uh planning harm um and you know the issue that's it's been going on so long my concern is harm to local residents here uh and you know from two meetings with them along a long time ago it was absolutely clear at the time this was a damaging application and damaging the quality of life to local residents in spite of their every efforts to make it work um it it has not been successful and i fully support the recommendation and just urge everybody to get on with it as quickly as possible thank you very much chairman thank you and um if we move to the vote i hopefully will be able to come with your vote before you have to go as well um councillor eileen wilson i just want to say that i i believe that the officers have made every effort possible to achieve compliance in this case and if they feel that an injunction taking that taking an injunction activity is the way to achieve compliance and make sure that all the interests are served then i fully support that thank you very much do we have any more speakers councillor hawkins councillor to me hawkins uh thank you chair i'll keep it brief uh we have tried everything um and for us this is a kind of you know last each effort to make sure that uh we can remove the harm that is being caused um to the residents um you know in terms of their own um you know well-being and amenity really and of course you know also our reputation as a local authority because you know if it's taking this long to get this much assault it doesn't help um you know when people go you know council doesn't do anything so i would really urge members to please um you know vote for this and let us get on with sorting this problem out once and for all thank you thank you and just from me in um what i really appreciate and respect is notwithstanding the fact that this needs to come to this this is one of the sort of the strictest forms that um you know can be used and it's obviously it's a it's the last measure and officers have done everything and i very much appreciate um the fact that nidale made very clear and in the report that they will look at covid in terms of the context of of any of these decisions as well um members i'm going to take us to the vote then and i'll do a roll call um and so it would be in terms of the recommendation of this is that we authorize the head of legal services in consultation with the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development that in the event that engagement with the owner or occupiers of the site is unsuccessful in securing compliance with the condition to initiate measures required to secure compliance with condition one through an application to the court for an injunction and that's on page 402 um paragraph six so please in the roll call let me know whether you're for against or an abstention and as i understand councillor heather williams i see you on my screen but i think you were out during the beginning of this presentation and therefore won't be taking part in the vote um so i'll make the roll call councillor henry bachelor for councillor bradham oh councillor bradham had to leave us councillor martin carne for councillor peter fein for councillor dr toomey hawkins for councillor deborah robbitts for chairman councillor dr richard williams for councillor eileen wilson for councillor nick right for and myself councillor pipper halings for that's carried with nine votes um councillor bradham had to leave the meeting councillor heather williams had problems technological problems at the beginning of this and therefore wasn't eligible to vote on this item we have a point of order chair not sure if you see the order councillor toomey hawkins thank you chair just checking that councillor robb was kind of bought on this councillor deborah robbitts i don't see why not chairman i don't know these people i don't know the case at all um no i've noticed it relates to gypsy and traveler issues so what and in the past you have not been allowed to take part in the discussions on those issues that's all should we take advice on that one do we have chairman i you know i'm not actually bothered one way or the other i understand whether i take but um can i just take some advice on that for um do we have legal advice on that monitoring advice want to go for some advice gone home looking nice come breathe tea um see you then thank you thank you chair um in view of the comment from councillor robbitts that she's not bothered either way could we invite councillor robbitts to withdraw her vote can i do that councillor deborah robbitts would you um withdraw your vote um i don't like being bullied which i feel as though i have been by councillor toomey hawkins she's got a wonderful memory hasn't she when it suits her um but i'll withdraw thank you i appreciate that so the vote is carried with eight votes and can i ask that um in light of her intervention which i don't find amusing um that uh i probably will speak to the monitoring officer or get advice from him just in case i don't want her jumping in every time um it's something um that is not relevant to anything today the things that she's talking about happened years and years and years ago um councillor deborah robbitts i think it would be good to have yeah to talk to the monitoring officer thank you very much so committee um we now go to agenda item 11 page 407 um and this is the enforcement report and allister i think you're with us hello allister hello can you hear me yes you have this delightful thing where you come in and rouse us for the very very ending of our of our committee meetings yeah i'll be very brief because you've said a long day yes thank you very much um do you want to introduce yourselves as well allister just people who are maybe with us yeah allister funge on the acting principal enforcement officer um i i do apologize that uh because of the date that i had to submit my report by the december figures were unavailable i will present these next month at february's meeting um and because of the way the thing works i think that will be the the way we will have to do it uh moving her forward i've got no updates on the report as it is but i'm happy to try and answer any questions if any member wishes me to do so thank you very much are there any questions um regarding the enforcement report members we have one chairman from councillor wilson yep councillor aileen wilson please thank you chair um i record as a previous um planning committee meeting that we were advised that we would receive regular updates on enforcement action taken um against um non-compliance at smithy fen and this seems to be missing in this report thank you very much i see councillor nick right is also um asked to speak and i'm sure that's probably the same question is it councillor nick right certainly is chairman and i understand we have steven kelly with us as well i don't know allister do you want to respond to that or or steven kelly is with us i'm happy either way i don't know if steven would like to is there anything no go ahead i was to then i just been i just been advised that he might be there to sort of also speak to this yeah okay yeah i mean this the council are looking at this we had a meeting yesterday with a number of the departments including environmental health the homelessness team benefits um it's been considered that it's inappropriate for uh planning enforcement to take unilateral action because of the the likely repercussions on other council departments and the individuals uh tenants involved so we're looking to put together a report with the course of action in order that we can try and safeguard some of the vulnerable people that are involved in this thank you i see sharon brown is with us as well and there's us to speak charon do you want to add anything to us to just explain um firstly i would just like to apologize to those members who did request uh the report at previous committee meetings and i know that members have mentioned this on more than one occasion but i do want to assure councillor nick right and those other members that we are working hard to be able to bring a report to planning committee but there are a wide number of issues there's not only the issues which allister has mentioned and i was at the same meeting that allister was at which was a cross service um cross council meeting to discuss the issues there's also a question of making sure that in respect of smithy fen any action that we take has been reviewed in terms of any actions that we may be considering in relation to any other gypsies and travellers sites because we do have complaints not only in relation to the planning service but also um other services across the council um in respect to some other gypsy and travellers sites as well so we need consistency of approach um also in this very difficult constraints of COVID and the implications of that we need to make sure um as Nigel highlighted in the previous item uh that any actions or recommendations for action that we take um are considered in the current circumstances and uh be very careful say that the uh actions that we might be considering in relation to any planning matters might not have adverse implications in relation to other services within the council and their ability to deal with issues arising from that so there are some quite complex issues but we do appreciate that there is a need to update planning committee as soon as we possibly can so we are working hard we have this cross service officer group now uh to put together a report and then that would feed into an update to planning committee and i have been in discussion with Stephen Kelly the director of planning and economic development about these issues thank you thank you um so Councillor Nick right do you want to come back on that at all thank you chairman that's really appreciated and this is exactly the reason why we wanted it reporting each month for planning committee because you note the meeting was yesterday and that was because the meeting of the planning committee was today and this has been going on since july 2016 i think when the initial action was actioned um you'll a note from the last item that was seven years it's taken to get to the injunction stage two years ago this site we noted this site needed to go to injunction and in fact that's what the planning committee was told that it would be if you check the minutes going back then um so it is very frustrating and as a councillor i'm very conscious that there's a lot of vulnerable people involved in this and it will take full services of the council to deal with that what we don't want to see is those exploitation of those vulnerable people uh uh allegedly continuing thank you thank you thank you very much councillor Nick right and councillor Aileen Wilson did you want to come back at all yes i did want to um as a local member this is something that um myself and the other local member we are criticised quite heavily um by um residents and the local parish council and if we could just be kept informed that things are happening then that that would be really very much appreciated just so that we can just go back to them say well things are happening the council are aware and um this is being dealt with because without any of that people have the impression that self-cams is not doing anything at all is doing nothing at all thank you thank you very much um um i don't think do we have any more speakers on this or any more questions not that i can see jim thank you so thank you allister for presenting that in terms of the enforcement and of course what we're we're therefore very anxious to sort of hear what's coming out of that cross member cross service um group that's set up and members agenda right thank you thank you all did you want to say anything else i was today um i was just going to say thank you very much for your time and i hope to have some update for you for next month thank you very much and we now go to agenda item 12 which appeals against planning decisions and enforcement action on page 415 of our report who's presenting this thank you jair that's me thank you christ i don't have any particular updates to make um other than to say that obviously it's a sort of 50 50 split on appeal decisions received over the last month um nothing in any of those allowed appeals would lead me to consider any theme in terms of appeal decisions being made they appear to relate to site specific circumstances rather than anything more more broadly um but happy to take any questions if members do have any thank you good thank you members do we have any questions about that i don't think there are any chair okay thank you for that and members that's the i'm just suddenly checking into the agenda item but that is the end of the agenda for our planning committee today um thank you very much thank you for sticking with me as chair acting chair in this meeting and apologies um for any that i've made in my learning role and thank you everybody for the time that's taken that we really really do um do us appreciate and respect and i'm now closing the meeting and Liam you can let us know when we are no longer live broadcast yeah sure i'm just